Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Salvio giuliano (talk | contribs) at 11:04, 8 October 2011 (→Page moves for User:Dolovis: closing). 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)

Current timestamp to prevent archiving by Cluebot. Cunard (talk) 10:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Closures needed on citation-related discussions

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)

Current timestamp to prevent archiving by Cluebot. Cunard (talk) 10:35, 27 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 - already handled
2. Misplaced Pages:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/August/11#Czech-*-stub templates - Needs action, see below
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- Needs action, see below
5. Misplaced Pages:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/August/20#Retail companies- Needs action, see below
6. Misplaced Pages:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/August/21#Template:US-transport-company-stub- Needs action, see below
7. Misplaced Pages:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/August/28 - already handled
8. Misplaced Pages:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/September/2 - already handled
9. Misplaced Pages:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/September/6 - already handled
10. Misplaced Pages:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/September/8#Madagascar province categories - already handled
11. Misplaced Pages:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/September/8#Old German district categories - already handled
12. Misplaced Pages:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/September/9#Several new English football stub types
13. Misplaced Pages:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/September/14#Ivory Coast sport templates
14. Misplaced Pages:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/September/14#Template:China-road-stub
15. Misplaced Pages:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/September/14#Category:Pakistan rail stubs
16. Misplaced Pages:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/September/15#American football offensive lineman, pre-1900 birth stubs
17. Misplaced Pages:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/September/16#'Pre-' category maintenance
18. Misplaced Pages:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/September/22#rail station -> railway station
19. Misplaced Pages:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/September/23#Portugal geography by District/Region categories

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

Closed, but left unactioned as I didn't know what to do :3 Stop by my TP if you can tell me what specific action is needed. :) -- DQ (t) (e) 06:09, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Agathoclea (talk · contribs), Fastily (talk · contribs), and DeltaQuad (talk · contribs), for closing many of the discussions listed above. I've added several more SfDs, which have become overdue. Cunard (talk) 06:10, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I did all the new categories and templates for the rail transport but found a few categories and templates that were not nominated at that I recorded at User:Agathoclea/AWB#strays Agathoclea (talk) 09:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Cunard (talk) 23:38, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Village pump (proposals) closures needed

Would an admin (or admins) close Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)#RfC: Structure WP:WQA conversations and Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)#Remove ability for new users to create other accounts? Both discussions were listed at Template:Centralized discussion and delisted to Misplaced Pages:Centralized discussion/Archive owing to inactivity. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:14, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, DeltaQuad (talk · contribs), for closing the WQA RfC. Cunard (talk) 05:54, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

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

Another merger requires an uninvolved party

Merge proposal regarding "2005 Ahvaz unrest" requires the attention of an uninvolved administrator to close an outdated discussion. Thank you.Greyshark09 (talk) 20:15, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Restored unresolved request from archive. Future timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk) 23:59, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Treasury Tag

I regret to say that I have utterly failed at the first hurdle in my attempts to mentor Treasury Tag. Apologies for wasting everyone's time. Perhaps a more skilled mentor would have more success. --Dweller (talk) 10:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

So what shall we do? Propose a topic ban for all deletion nominations? No nominations for deletion for AFD or prod permitted. But permit copyright violation and attack and vandalism speedy delete nominations. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

That's a shame, but perhaps not a surprise. I thought your proposed beginning editing restrictions during mentorship were fine - apart from "Don't write any whole words in edit summaries" which I just didn't understand. But I suspect this is because I didn't get the background problem which this is supposed to address. However TT flatly declined all the other proposed temporary restrictions (which would have left the vast majority of article space free to edit in) and as such I think no more skilled mentor could have achieved anything better. Kim Dent-Brown 10:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

While it may have left the majority of article-space free for me to edit, I don't edit the majority of pages. Nobody does. We all have specific interests. While I wouldn't be banned from writing about the music of Argentina or God in Hinduism or cricket in Zimbabwe, I have no inclination and no competence to do so. ╟─TreasuryTag►tortfeasor─╢ 10:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

This idea of "there is a whole wiki to edit" always strikes me as missing the point (not to jump on you specifically Kim). I have zero interest in most of Misplaced Pages - and if the community stopped me editing pages I was interested in my response would just be to stop editing... --Errant 11:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Hang on a moment, these restrictions were designed to be temporary and allow Dweller the manouverability to focus on the areas that were shown to be problematic. That TT dealt in absolutes and refused to even discuss them - even attacking the only editor who came forward to put himself out to help TT has actually disappointed me. If you don't understand a reason for a restriction then the best way to deal with that is not through sarcasm.

I know that discussions regarding sanctions were largely postponed due to the fact that there was a mentor available, if TT does not appear willing to try, then I do not see any other option. Worm · (talk) 11:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I could be a "start being a little nicer to people in words and actions" half of a two person mentoring team (if acceptable to TT). It would be limited to analysis, commentary and suggestions on behavior just in that area. Would be slower motion I have a 9 day period coming up when I'll be off the grid. The other person / half would would be more attuned to understanding/watching and dealing with their complex range of activities. Just an idea, don't know if it's viable. North8000 (talk) 12:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd prefer to have a mentor that I could trust, thanks, North8000. ╟─TreasuryTag►Tellers' wands─╢ 12:07, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, with that declination (and that mis-characterization which ignores the outcome) I'm bowing out. North8000 (talk) 12:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that you would be willing to work with a mentor? Your comments on your talk page look to me like you are not willing to compromise, to limit yourself even in the early stages of the mentoring process. If you would like a mentoring team, perhaps I could help. You know my history and would you believe, I'm quite knowledgable on Doctor Who too. I do think you need to stop dealing in absolutes though and finding a solution that's acceptable to all Worm · (talk) 12:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

As I said repeatedly on my talkpage, I'm happy to work with a mentor provided that a compromise can be reached that doesn't involve an outright prohibition on all my normal Misplaced Pages activities. ╟─TreasuryTag►Odelsting─╢ 12:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

It is your 'normal Misplaced Pages activities' that are precisely the problem here. But let's try this another way.

• What, as you see it, is the problem with your editing that so many people have raised so many times?
• How do you suggest these problems be addressed? → ROUX ₪ 13:04, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

  Roux, you seem to believe that I'm under some sort of imperative here to (a) provide timely answers to any questions you may demand, and (b) to find a mentor and actively seek out editing restrictions.
  I won't insult your intelligence by going into detail about why (a) is bollocks, but as to (b) I think I should remind you that I am not currently blocked. I'm not currently topic-banned. There is currently no active proposal for me to be either blocked or topic-banned. And personally, I'm quite happy to 'take my chances' without a mentor, without being prohibited from editing in my areas of expertise, without being subjected to pathetic childish point-scoring and without receiving ultra vires demands to account for myself at any given opportunity. ╟─TreasuryTag►person of reasonable firmness─╢ 16:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

It would seem to me that the simple thing is to preclude any activities that violate WP:BATTLEGROUND, pure and simple. Just stop trying to pick wiki-fights with people - I mean initiating this a whole 41 minutes after Dweller suggested this was...er...actually adjectives fail me here. Does anyone think TT will actually listen to any mentor anyway. I doubt it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that the main problem is TT's inclination to delete everything, 2nd to the comments and demeanor when those deletions are contested. I would suggest that the comment given above by Graeme is a good one that TT be limited to prod deletions only relating to copyright violation, attacks and vandalism speedy delete nominations. At least temporarily. If after a couple months they get the communities trust back then perhps the restriction can be lifted. --Kumioko (talk) 16:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

It seems more than a little unwise to have tried to delete Casliber's userspace draft without asking him first so quickly after the block ended. At worst what possible harm does it do for it to remain there indefinitely? I'd say very little. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:36, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, given this reply, it is obvious TT doesn't think he's done anything wrong whatsoever, doesn't need a mentor, doesn't need sanctions, so in which case, is there any other option but an indef block here? Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I hate to see any productive editor blocked, much less indefinitely, but it does seem like mentoring has failed. I'd suggest, as does TT himself on his talk page, that he takes his chances now, along with the inevitable consequences if things don't change. Malleus Fatuorum 21:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I wish to speak against the casual application of indef blocks to experienced editors.  Why should this block be for more than 4 months at the outside, unless the powers that be are quietly encouraging a sock puppet to reappear that will be hamstrung?  Consider my viewpoint as that of a newbie, if that is appropriate, but after seeing what happened to User:Rememberway, I don't think the admins should ever be assigning indef blocks to experienced users.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:00, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Renewing topic ban proposal

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.

As it has been several days since this was proposed and there is strong consensus for enacting both Georgewilliamherbert's and Floquenbeam's proposals for a topic ban, I am closing this as "enacted". Specifically, as proposed by Floquenbeam, "a full topic ban on initiating all CSD's, PROD's, and XfD discussions for any page in Misplaced Pages" will be applied to User:TreasuryTag. As TreasuryTag is currently indefinitely blocked, this topic ban will take effect when and if the block is lifted. The restriction may be reviewed by the community at TreasuryTag's request six months after it takes effect. I will notify TreasuryTag and update the edit restrictions page accordingly. 28bytes (talk) 16:39, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

This was deferred last week in lieu of letting the attempt at mentorship have its chance, but there seems to be universal agreement on all sides that mentorship is not going to happen now. With that in mind, let me reintroduce this community restriction proposal, attempting to limit TT away from the focal point of most of the recent blowups:

To protect TT from that backlash and avoid the controversy becoming an ongoing sore point, I propose the following community sanction:

TreasuryTag is topic banned by the Misplaced Pages community from article deletion of speculative fiction related articles, broadly construed. This restriction may be reviewed by the community at TT's request after not less than six months have passed since its enaction.

Proposed (again) - Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

• Strong oppose as an over-the-top reaction to a tiny number (what is it? 1? 2? 3?) of Doctor Who AfDs which I initiated and which closed as 'keep'. That is a normal part of the consensus-building process. Most editors who start AfDs and have them closed as 'keep' are not topic-banned. There is really no reason to make an exception in this case, other than the fact that a lot of editors don't like me and will welcome this opportunity to pile on – ╟─TreasuryTag►prorogation─╢ 21:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

If we aren't going to just let him take his chances, then I think the sanction should be bigger than this - I would suggest preventing him from participating in the deletion process at all. The case with Casliber's userspace draft was hardly productive and its clear his judgment with regards to deletions is very poor. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Support, although I'm not sure I'm allowed an opinion here, not being an administrator. Malleus Fatuorum 21:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

As per WP:Polling is not a substitute for discussion, you're normally expected to provide an explanation to help the consensus-building process rather than just plonking down a vote. ╟─TreasuryTag►District Collector─╢ 21:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Sadly I think you've just demonstrated once again why this episode is unlikely to end well. Malleus Fatuorum 21:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Support as well if meaningful given non admin etc. per above. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:38, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

As per WP:Polling is not a substitute for discussion, you're normally expected to provide an explanation to help the consensus-building process rather than just plonking down a vote. ╟─TreasuryTag►District Collector─╢ 21:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Everyone can and should comment here, regardless of adminship-status. :) --Conti|✉ 21:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Support in order to temporarily eliminate a field of activity which has led to much "more-heat-than-light" activity from TT and opponents. If there are truly bad articles, other editors will find them and tag them for deletion; TT need not fear that WP will go to the dogs if he is not around to police this area. This will also allow TT to concentrate on article building and to practise a style of editing which is less confrontational and more collegial. Once this has been demonstrated (and assuming that it is) the temporary ban could be lifted by consensus here. Kim Dent-Brown 22:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Clarification in light of further proposals below: I would prefer this more limited restriction as my first choice, but if the consensus were for a stricter, wider restriction up to and including no participation in any deletion-related activity, I would support this in preference to "no action". Kim Dent-Brown 22:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support as a minimum restriction, but would more strongly support a topic ban from Dr Who articles, broadly construed. The deletion trouble seems to be a symptom of TT's inability to engage neutrally on the topic of Dr Who, so I would rather nip that entire issue in the bud now than be back here in a week when TT manages to get himself into new Dr Who trouble. Frankly, given TT's history, I probably wouldn't oppose even stricter restrictions than a Who topic ban, if someone proposed them. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:29, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
• Based on the copyright symbol and Casliber XfD's, I believe it would be better to keep it simple, and topic ban Treasury Tag from initiating all CSD's, PROD's, and XfD discussions for any page in Misplaced Pages. He is correct that editors are not normally banned from XfD simply for proposing deletions of pages that are ultimately kept, but that is not what is happening here. I was tempted to leave an opening for F7 CSD's (which is necessary but unpopular work), and the standard attack page/vandalism CSD, but upon reflection I think that's a bad idea, as it would provide too many boundaries to be tested, and Treasury Tag seems unwilling or unable to avoid testing boundaries. Better a flat out topic ban, to be reviewed in a few months. Also emphasize that the unblock restrictions he and HJMitchell agreed to are also still in force. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
• support but modified by what floquenbeam suggests. If something needs deleted, others can get to it.--Crossmr (talk) 22:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support Mentoring was entered into to avoid this requirement, but as attempts at mentorship failed quickly, and even a more recent mentor volunteer was told he wasn't "trusted" on rather trumped-up grounds, the only option is this (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:07, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support Enough is enough. His restrictions should also be made clear to avoid all Dr Who-related articles broadly construed. Buffs (talk) 23:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support I prefer Floquenbeam's modified version, however I fully endorse Georgewilliamherbert's proposal if it helps put a cap on this never-ending uncontrolled gush of drama. Jezebel'sPonyo 23:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Browsing TreasuryTag's recent contributions, I fail to see the problem. I find Misplaced Pages:Editor review/TreasuryTag, but saction discussions seem to have missed the Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User conduct step. I think there is too much gut-reaction going on here. XfD is a robust process that can handle all sorts of nominations, and TreasuryTag's are not really so bad, and I cannot see a reaon for blocking. Leave him alone until something blockable happens. If it is a longterm low level issue, document it via an RFC/U. If sanctions are required, they need to be simple, and directly related to the reason for blocking. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support Had the opportunity to make the most of mentoring and decided to spit on it. So this appears to be the next best option so we don't have to further waste the communities time. -DJSasso (talk) 01:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support Floquenbeam's modified proposal. The Copyright Symbol AfD established that TT's participation there is too disruptive at this time.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:04, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support Floquenbeam's version I find the preamble in the main block proposal extremely troubling. Topic bans should not be used to protect an editor from themselves, they should only be used to protect Misplaced Pages from the editor. That said, I think something does need to be done to protect Misplaced Pages from harm. The topic ban should be limited to nominating for deletion, I haven't seen much to justify a broadly construed ban on participating. Monty₈₄₅ 02:32, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support for either Floquenbeam's more general approach (preferred) or GWH's more specific ban, whichever receives the most community support. TT's disruptive behavior and uncollegial demeanor across many situations and in many venues calls into question his basic capacity to fit in here. He sucks up more time than his participation is worth and needs to be reigned in. I would say bans such as the two suggested are the minimum response to his misbehavior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
• Comment I'd be willing to attempt mentoring TT. As a fellow Whovian, i'd be more likely to navigate the intricasies of the topic area with him successfully and return him to good standing. The Wordsmith 04:35, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

  I am not personally encouraged on that regard by TT above and the thread on his talk page today on the topic of mentoring. That said - If you can help work with him, and he's willing to work with you and the community, that is probably an improvement on the current situation. I would recommend a new thread on his talk page to sound him out on the idea. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

  As I've said, I'm happy to consider any specific mentorship proposals, but if they are going to basically prevent me from doing anything I would wish to do on Misplaced Pages (ie. in particular, editing Doctor Who articles) then I will not agree to them. ╟─TreasuryTag►Storting─╢ 07:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I would prefer Floquenbeam's more general approach. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:20, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
• Question—before everyone jumps on this ridiculous bandwagon of banning me from all deletion including CSD, can someone produce some diffs demonstrating that I've abused CSD in any way? Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►person of reasonable firmness─╢ 07:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

  The theory here is to try to get you to do something besides deletion-related things. I already mentioned that, for example, I don't know offhand of any F7-related errors. I still think a ban that includes initiating F7 CDS's is a good idea. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• Question to TT I would appreciate a comment from TreasuryTag regarding two old and unrelated issues that I noticed because I am wondering how TT feels about those issues now—would they be repeated if the same situation arose again? The first issue was discussed at WT:Civility#Vulgar jokes where an editor mentioned that at Talk:Rubyfruit Jungle an editor (TreasuryTag) had made several edits opposing the removal of an off-topic and vulgar joke. TT's first edit reinstated the joke; see the history for the ensuing saga. The second issue involved a new editor who made this edit (their first and only edit—a valuable edit, although the edit summary revealed that the user was connected with the topic). TT left {{uw-coi}} at the user's talk page. I joined in as the third editor to remove the warning per WP:BITE: one example of TT re-adding the warning is here, and my discussion with TT is here. Johnuniq (talk) 09:46, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Given that these issues are exactly as you say, old and unrelated, I really don't see how bringing these up here is helpful. Can I plead with you Johnuniq to retract this question and not derail the discussion. And can I plead with TT not to respond to this question in the mean time, in the interests of keeping this thread on-track? Kim Dent-Brown 10:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The second edit was discussed in the now archived discussion which we are continuing here as mentoring failed and therefore relevant to the current discussion. Agathoclea (talk) 11:01, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support barring TT from any xFD or PROD debate as these are vulnerable to battleground behaviour anyway, and his involvement often descends into battleground-type behaviour. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:03, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

  <snot>(There's not really any such thing as a PROD debate)</snot> On reflection, I would also support a ban on any deletion related activities at all, including participating in other people's XfD discussions. Although if I had to choose I'd probably lean towards starting out with a ban on initiation, and see if that was sufficient. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support a mix of Floquenbeam and GWH's versions. TreasuryTag is topic banned by the Misplaced Pages community from article deletion of speculative fiction related articles. In addition, TreasuryTag will be restricted from participating in any deletion-related areas. HurricaneFan25 13:32, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Re the above - restricted how? Kim Dent-Brown 13:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

By "restricted," I simply mean "banned". Reworded for clarification. HurricaneFan25

What's the point of the first sentence of that proposal? It's already covered by the second... ╟─TreasuryTag►Lord Speaker─╢ 14:31, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support TT has wasted far too much of the community's time, and has shown over and over again a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and an inability to contribute to AFD in a constructive, colloquial, and collaborative manner. I'd rather see him topic banned from the whole of the deletion process, but this is a start. Frankly I'm suprised he has yet to exhaust the community's patience entirely. N419BH 20:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support  Reasonable, and suggest that if TT is blocked this topic ban starts when he/she returns.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
• Comment The ban wording has some problems. "article deletion of speculative fiction related articles" is not an intelligible topic. I think what is meant is more along the lines of "TT may make no edits concerning within deletion discussions that concern speculative fiction." It should be made clear whether TT should be allowed to participate in general discussions on deletion that would impact SF articles. The review mechanism is flawed. TT may request an abeyance or overturning of his/her ban at any time and the community is empowered to do so at any time. As written, it implies a restriction of both TT's ability to appeal and the community's discretion to grant it, which I think is broadly understood to be unacceptable barring extraordinary circumstances. Generally speaking, ban reviews are tough to corral over ANI, and if you want it baked in, it would be better to grant one or two administrators discretionary review.--Tznkai (talk) 21:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I object, my grammar only smelt of elderberries. "concerning within deletion discussions" ? 8-)

I believe that the context and "broadly construed" makes this clear enough; at this point, if anyone else has a scope question it can be reasonably discussed, and if he does it's strike eight. However, closing admin can clarify syntax if need be. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Continued disruption

Are pointy edits such as this really improving the encyclopedia? I don't understand why this type of behaviour by TT is tolerated by the community. Jezebel'sPonyo 20:10, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

...arguably, TT seems right - the citations to support the statements there in the lead are a bit lack on a casual readthrough of the article, and not readily apparent in the body. That said, there's much less pointy and combative ways to say "this needs more references". --MASEM (t) 20:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

And to be fair that is probably the way to go - rather than this earlier edit by TT. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The problem is that it was a completely pointy edit that served only to disrupt an article which receives approximately 1000 page views daily. If there were concerns they could have been expressed on the talk page, or through discussion when the edit was initially reverted. This was pure disruption to prove a point, regardless of the legitimacy of the concerns. Jezebel'sPonyo 20:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Removing unreferenced weasel words from the lede of an article is not disruptive. It is Misplaced Pages policy. The fact that the article is frequently-viewed makes it even more important to adhere to our standards of verifiability. ╟─TreasuryTag►assemblyman─╢ 20:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, because the owners of that article feel unable to provide citations for the glowing praise of its subject, I've initiated an RfC on the talkpage. Well done folks – instead of just doing something simple, we're going to have 30 days of bureaucratic discussion. Good one. ╟─TreasuryTag►quaestor─╢ 20:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

An RFC before even approaching a talk page discuss is further flaming the issue. As a simple comment on this whole thing, I think that's the problem that is at the core. TT is thinking in absolutes, those being the ultimate processes for resolving disputes (xFD, talk page RFC) instead of stepping through the steps that are more preferred and generally more helpful and friendlier to all involved. There's no requirement that these steps be done before the ultimate step is taken (sometimes its necessary), but at the same time, when this is the only steps that TT seems interested in taking, at the volumes TT edits at, that's disruptive. --MASEM (t) 20:31, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

This is definitely over the top - as no non-RFC talk page discussion has been suggested first. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Disruptive and not even borderline. I agree that the lead needs to be supported by cited text in the article body but there are a simpler ways of making that point rather than starting an RfC on a hitherto undiscussed issue. --regentspark (comment) 20:43, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I didn't feel able to engage in constructive discussion with an admin who baselessly accused me of being a "POV-pushing vandal." ╟─TreasuryTag►Subsyndic General─╢ 20:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• As I've stated on my User talk page and at Talk:The New Yorker, TT's edits related to The New Yorker are clearly deliberate disruption -- and this is disruption that is unrelated to the ongoing topic ban discussion. --Orlady (talk) 20:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Despite the fact that at least one of them is completely correct? The article claims that the New Yorker is well known for its fact checking, yet in the article the first mention of that is of a scandal where its fact checking was claimed to be poor! That's just bad writing. Either leave the {{cn}} tag there or remove the sentence. No opinion on the rest of it. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:04, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
    • It took me just a couple of minutes to find a source for the assertion and add it to the article. I'm not sure who deserves blame, but making a huge, time-consuming dispute out of an easily fixed omission is disrutpive.   Will Beback  talk  22:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked

In light of the ongoing combative behaviour not conducive to a collaborative environment, along with violations of the terms of his unblock (making allegations of misconduct in edit summaries rather than on noticeboards ), I have placed an indefinite block on TreasuryTag's account. I believe TreasuryTag has exhausted the community's patience, but give leave in advance for another administrator to lift this block if they feel it is no longer necessary or was made in error. –xeno 21:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Can't help but unfortunately agree. His argument that we have to follow a specific escalation pattern is pretty moot: he's wikilwayering, and just as we can skip from a 1m to 4m warning based on circumstances, it's clear that TT is testing and pushing a non-existent envelope. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like the only option left. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Just a note that (for all it's worth at this point) post-block, TT published an unauthorized IRC excerpt on his talk and, when advised that that was prohibited by irc policy, suggested that "someone had better block me, then". Does this call for redaction of the excerpt? Revdeletion? Removal of talk page access? None of those? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:51, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I was just about to suggest removal of talk page access. Revdelete sounds good as well. Agathoclea (talk) 21:53, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I was surprised that TT was allowed to publish IRC scripts. I think this is entirely unacceptable. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:58, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I've blanked the excerpt-related content and advised TT to not restore it. I'm agnostic on the issue of revdeletion, and am fine with it if someone else decides to take that extra step. If TT does restore the log despite my warning, I very much suggest removal of talkpage access. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Gwen beat me to the decline of the unblock. Good block by Xeno, good unblock decline reasoning by Gwen. Exceptionally poor form by Treasury Tag. TT has demonstrated a remarkable resistance to mitigating his problematic behavior and has torpedoed good faith efforts to mentor him I think the therapy session is over and it's time to 86 him for a while. WP:OFFER might be of some use, but I agree that a timed block is unlikely to do any good in this case. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:04, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• "for a while."

I'll stand a round if his latest "indef block" lasts longer than a week. It'll be reversed in a day or two and he'll once again chalk it up on his "scoreboard" of invulnerability.

I don't care about him publishing an IRC log if only he'd apologize afterwards, and maybe admit that he'd been in the wrong. As it is, everything is always someone else's fault and he's perpetually wikilawyering away at loopholes to prove it. We just don't need that behaviour at all. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Yep. He contravened my request that he not restore the irc-related content and restored the thread minus the log itself. Rather a neat way of saying "fuck you" while retaining some chance his talkpage access won't be removed. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

What? TT is a wikilawyer? He'll fight you tooth and nail on that charge (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Andy, that's going to be a giant tab at the pub! I think the block is good and the unblock refusal is good. The editor is a net negative, taking skilled eyes away from improving the encyclopedia. Binksternet (talk) 22:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Please call these guys, who are a mere two blocks from my house, to arrange that beer. I prefer their porter. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:47, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Endorse block. We may want to consider closing the thread and having an uninvolved admin judge the consensus on the topic ban. When TT is eventually unblocked I believe such editing restrictions thus entering into effect will serve to help avoid the issues that have led to the present situation. N419BH 04:46, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I think its rather sad for the project that people feel that this block will be reversed sometime soon. If it is it will show severe lack of judgement from the unblocking admin given how practically universal the arguments for stronger restrictions on treasury tag have been. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

This is his third "indefinite" block. As blocks just don't stick to this editor, he has developed a mentality that they shouldn't stick to him and that blocking is just something for the little people. An editor who keeps a scoreboard that's positively crowing over how little block time was actually served, "TreasuryTag has received 907 hours' worth of blocks, plus two times ∞, though has only actually been blocked for 356 hours and 12 minutes" just isn't realising that the problem might be with their behaviour, not the blocking admins. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:31, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Mentorship offer by Worm That Turned

FYI folks. User:Worm That Turned has offered to mentor TT (). I think if TT accepts mentorship, he should be unblocked. I know Worm's mentoring and he is a great mentor. -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 08:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

That's why enacting the topic ban (which would be valid during mentoring) is important. The only understanding - should TT accept mentoring - is that if either: TT formally (by words) or informally (by actions) stops being mentored by Worm, OR Worm determines that mentorship is no longer fruitful, the indef block is reapplied. Might wanna have a 3 strike rule, but that might be wikilawyered to death, so make it an LBW (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:27, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

What, and he'll suddenly find these "unacceptable' restrictions acceptable? I doubt it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

How much time do we have to waste on this? 99.9% of our userbase manages to behave reasonably - shouldn't we concentrate on them? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:45, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The idea that mentorship of TT at this time will be beneficial to the project is not one I would support. The topic ban wouldn't help either, he would just choose another sector to disrupt. Something happened to TT's interaction with the project a couple of months ago and since then he has been a train wreck in action. WP:Standard offer and only if he accepts mentorship in six months time would be my offer. Off2riorob (talk) 09:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Hadn't spotted this. Firstly, thanks PC for the vote of confidence, I really appreciate it. I wasn't planning to mention it here, since anyone interested would already be watching TT's page. In my experience, the community is a very forgiving one, and if TT and I can come to some arrangement whereby he is not causing issues and we can move forward - I expect the community in general would allow me to have a go.

For the record, I have mentored a few other users when they were teetering on the edge, and I have had both successes and failures. Importantly, I think it should be known that I am willing to step up to the plate and summarily block my own mentees if mentorship is failing, and the only reason that they are unblocked is my mentorship. As such, it can be properly regarded as a "last chance"

However, the whole thing does take (at least) two willing participants, and so this whole point could be moot depending on TT's level of interest. Worm · (talk) 11:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd support Worm's idea. Although I've not personally interacted with TT, I've seen some of his interactions with others, particularly when he appears on ANI, and in general he doesn't help so much as fan the flames. Be watched or be gone, I say. Perhaps, something more "in your face" is required to make sure he knows that this is his last chance; TT should accept Worm's mentorship unconditionally or face a community ban. strong words, I know, but sometimes hitting them with a tree works better than smacking them with a twig repeatedly. --Blackmane (talk) 14:39, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

If I can add my non-admin opinion here, I would at this time say this is a bad idea. The numebr of blocks that TT had had, including the indef-blocks that were reverted strike me as a "and we really really REALLY mean it this time" gesture, and aren't taken seriously. At this point, I feel it's better for the project if TT stays away for a period of time, and if they come back with a genuine mindset to be civil, them maybe this should be considered. Wildthing61476 (talk) 16:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Whilst I can see that point of view, blocks on Misplaced Pages are founded on the idea that they're not meant to punish, but prevent harm - what's more indefinite blocks are placed until something changes to render them un-necessary. However, this discussion is still currently moot. Worm · (talk) 16:54, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I understand that and respect your decision to mentor TT, which is admirable. I just think it's a fruitless measure unfortunately. Wildthing61476 (talk) 16:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

You're not the first, and you won't be the last Worm · (talk) 17:08, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Good luck. Though this doesn't bode well. --‖ Ebyabe - General Health ‖ 19:15, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I think there is significant value in blocking users for a decent period of time before taking them to indef. Certainly MickMacNee was never blocked beyond a few days before going indef and I think that's bad. There is a reasonable chance that a 1-3 month ban followed by mentoring will be successful. Far greater IMO than unblocking now. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:43, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Talk page title altered

TreasuryTag has modified the displayed title on his talk page so that it is no longer identified as a User talk page. I've never seen that before (but maybe I just don't get around much). Another user restored the heading, but was reverted by another admin. Is it kosher to remove the name space label from the page? --Orlady (talk) 20:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I have mine not showing on my user page - never heard anyone question it. I'd be interested to know if it was a problem. Worm · (talk) 20:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

But your talk page is clearly identifiable as such. --Orlady (talk) 20:55, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

It's harmless, in my opinion. I think it's a fairly common thing to modify one's user page or user talk page title in such a way. I doubt anyone's confused whether it's a user talk page, since TT has a couple of banners at the top that say that it is. 28bytes (talk) 21:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I spend a lot of time working with very new users, and wanted to make sure it was clear for them. If my interests lay elsewhere, I probably would have changed the talk title too. Worm · (talk) 21:03, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree that many editors do this and that it's fine. See User talk:Splarka for an interesting one. Jenks24 (talk) 01:34, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Mine's altered that way too (along with colors to match my signature), and I know of at least one admin (HJ Mitchell) who does so as well with colors and font changes. It's not a problem especially when combined with edit notices and talk page banners, which most of us have. The removal of the topic ban notification with the edit summary "rm lynch mob", however, is a problem. N419BH 06:03, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

seeking consensus on the legitimacy of a type of talk-page refactor

Per wp:TALKNEW, major headings should not be used to be critical of or attack other editors, and should generally not be addressed to specific editors. Hat headings are major headings, and the header below violates all three of those principles. It's childish that BeyondMyKen felt the need to do this in the first place, absurd that he was pugnacious enough to continue doing it after I changed it, and thoroughly disgusting that other editors support the act. If this kind of trolling can occur on wp:AN, then it surely explains a whole lot of what's wrong with wikipedia. useless crapulence… --Ludwigs2 22:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Requesting review of RM closure

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

I invite reversal of my decision, if it seems to have been a bad, ill-supported one. Thanks in advance. -GTBacchus 02:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Since "another horrible close, that flies in the face of consensus" are my words, I'll clarify. There was an RM discussion in May. The consensus then was unanimous to move it. The issue of ENGVAR was not directly raised, but the implication was clear that all those involved did not think it applied since the proposed spelling was commonly used in the established variant (British) of the article, which is all that ENGVAR requires.

In this particular discussion, there was no consensus to move, and there was certainly no consensus about the previous discussion being a violation of ENGVAR. In fact, LtPowers (talk · contribs) made a strong argument explaining why ENGVAR did not apply, and this was not addressed, much less refuted. GTB ignored all of this, not even making a mention of it. His closing comment simply presumed that ENGVAR applied, without explanation. These are the reasons why I said it was a horrible close and contrary to consensus.

Frankly, I was hoping that GTB would recognize his error and reverse his decision, but apparently that's not going to happen. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:20, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

It's only makes sense to say "recognize his error," if it's clear that I made an error. Whether I made one is a good-faith question which I'm asking the community to address. Obviously, your vote is that yes, I did. Let's hear from others before assuming you're right, okay? Otherwise I might be making an error to reverse my decision. Maybe you've erred in judgment. Maybe I have; maybe we both have. If the community agrees I've erred, I'll absolutely reverse my decision; what else would I do? -GTBacchus 02:33, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

It appears that there is a related proposal at WT:Manual of Style#Proposal to bring WP:RETAIN in compliance with WP:COMMONALITY.   Will Beback  talk  02:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

GTB, I suggest the encyclopedia would be much better off if you personally recognized the error. There would be far more benefit to WP from that, in the long run, than whether this one particular article is moved or stays. It's also quite possible that consensus at this time will not recognize the error either. That doesn't mean it's not there.

It's also possible I've made an error and there is something going on here that we've both overlooked. But, again, given the lack of acknowledgment to Power's point, much less a refutation of his argument, it seems to me the ball is in your court, and has been there from the moment you chose to close it contrary to what he pointed out. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

If I truly believed there were an error, I would jump to fix it. I'm not going to accept that your judgment is so likely to be right that I should abandon my own and that of the community to bark at your command. You haven't shown that you're so right and we're all so wrong, so don't expect me to just start following your version of what to do if you haven't convinced me or anyone else that your version is any good.

Let's hear what others say, okay? -GTBacchus 02:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

To clarify, I'm not asking you to accept my judgment. I'm hoping you will actually personally recognize the error, whether it has anything to do with anything I say or do doesn't matter. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:31, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

If there is an error, then I hope I learn about it. That's an "if". Your belief that there is one is not conclusive proof that there is one. Let's talk less, and listen more, okay? -GTBacchus 03:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the close was a reasonable exercise of judgment by the closing admin. There was a slight numerical advantage in support of reverting; if even slightly greater weight is given to the ENGVAR argument as opposed to the others made, which I think is a reasonable judgment to make, it is then a reasonable judgment to find consensus to revert. Certainly another closer may have determined there was a lack of consensus, but the judgment by GTBacchus was reasonable, and should not be overturned. (Though I would prefer it be spelled Iodized) Monty₈₄₅ 03:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Since both spellings in question are British English (no one has questioned this), how is ENGVAR even relevant here? ENGVAR is about retaining the language variant of the article, which in this case remains British English regardless of which title is used. GTB's entire basis for deciding in favor of moving was that the previous move in May (which was unanimous consensus, by the way), violated ENGVAR. How is this a reasonable judgment? --Born2cycle (talk) 05:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Australia uses ise, it was moved to an alternative, non Australian variety. I don't see how WP:ENGVAR is inapplicable. Monty₈₄₅ 06:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Unless you're suggesting the article was written in Australian English, I don't understand the relevance of Australian usage to the ENGVAR compliance question. WP:RETAIN, the applicable section of ENGVAR here, states: "When a variety of English has become established in an article, it should be maintained... ". Well, so far as I know, the "variety of English" that has been established in this article is British English, not Australian English, and that doesn't change whether the -ised or -ized spelling is used, since both are accepted and widely used in British English. That is, either way, the established English variety (British English) is retained. Therefore, GTB's basis for reverting the May unanimous consensus move -- based entirely on the assumption that that move violated ENGVAR -- is completely unfounded. How again is that reasonable? --Born2cycle (talk) 06:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Can you prove the article was not written in Australian English? Looks like it's written in Australian English to me. Jenks24 (talk) 10:18, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Is there no end to the extent that people are willing to go to rationalize basis for their positions? Your argument is that the variety of English of this article is Australian, not British? Really?

LOL, well, there actually is some basis for that position, as the original version was created by an IP registered in... Melbourne, Australia! Gotta give ya that one!

As I wrote somewhere else, if there is basis for GTB's closing, it's not in any of the arguments presented in the discussion he closed; it's an ex post facto justification. It's pretty weak, but it is something. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:12, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Born2cycle, four people agreeing to something over the course of four days is not a "unanimous consensus" anything. It's four people. That's a small local consensus at best, and it does basically nothing towards overriding a strong, long-standing, global consensus. -GTBacchus 14:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Four people unanimously agreeing is probably an above average consensus for a typical RM discussion. It's not to be overridden lightly. Of course it does not override a strong long-standing global consensus, except it did not do that, unless you're hanging your hat on the new Australian variant argument. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

No. I'm suggesting that you stop thinking of arguments as things to hang hats on.

You know what's not to be overridden lightly? The consensus of thousands, who have established a consistent practice around our community understanding of ENGVAR, as it may or may not be documented on a stupid page somewhere. People should stop reading those pages.

Four people cannot override one thousand people, you seem to be requesting that we fly in the face of the consensus of a thousand. Where was it agreed to do that? Inertia of a guideline page is NOT an argument. -GTBacchus 17:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Born2cycle, I would suggest that you're giving ENGVAR a very technical reading, as if it's that kind of "rule". It's not, and it's a damn shame if the page is written in a way that makes it seem to be. ENGVAR is not a technical rule, but a principle. Namely, ENGVAR = "Don't mess around with this kind of spelling issue without a real, real, real good reason." There isn't such a reason here, so ENGVAR recommends we not change the title. Getting into technical details as to exactly what counts as a national variety edit and what doesn't entails already having missed the point. -GTBacchus 14:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

If "Don't mess around with this kind of spelling issue without a real, real, real good reason." is what it's supposed to mean, then what ENGVAR is called and what it says needs to change. Because as it exists what it means in name and wording is, "In a given article use language that is consistent with the English variety established in that article." --Born2cycle (talk) 17:12, 6 October 2011 (UTC) P.S. ENGVAR says noting directly about titles, and even says nothing about avoiding spelling changes merely because they are only spelling changes. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:20, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

My knowledge of ENGVAR is based on how Wikipedians use it, not based on what a lawyer wrote on a page, possibly under the misapprehension that she was creating a rule. I suggest you base yours on experience as well, and not on what's written on those often-misleading, often-inaccurate pages.

If the stupid guideline page needs fixing, then I suggest you fix it, and I suggest you fix it based on observations of consensus discussions on a variety of topics, and not based on what you figure it must be, or on what it happens to currently say. -GTBacchus 17:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

So, your personal opinion about what you believe 1000s of Wikipedians think ENGVAR means trumps what Wikipedians have agreed to put in clear writing for all to see in what you see as a "stupid guideline". Is there no limit to your arrogance? --Born2cycle (talk) 17:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

(ec with section close - all done now)It's not my "personal opinion of what I believe they think". It's what I watched them do, over and over and over again! How many Wikipedians contributed to writing that guideline, and how many contributed to the discussions that it purports to describe? You want to claim that the few and the lawyerly are obviously a more reliable source than the many and and the productive? Is there no limit to your arrogance? -GTBacchus 17:53, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

strange error prevents me from creating a new article

I'm trying to create a new article for Karin Kloosterma​n. Whenever I click on that, and choose the "Create this page" tab, I get the message:

Unauthorized

The page title that you have attempted to create contains a non-breaking space or other unusual space character. Such characters should not normally be used in page titles. Please replace them with ordinary spaces and try again. If you got here by clicking on a red link in an article, you should go back and fix the link first.

If you have a good reason for creating a page with this title, or if you receive this message when attempting to edit an existing page, please let us know at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard. Be sure to specify the exact title of the page you are trying to create or edit, as well as a brief explanation of what you were trying to do. Thank you.

So, what's going on? I never had this problem before when creating articles. There is nothing unusual about the title. Dream Focus 11:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

It's the letter "a" in "man", which is not a regular "a" (click on your redlink then look at the url) - try Karin Kloosterman instead. Bencherlite 11:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I copy and pasted the name from somewhere. It loads up exactly the same in Firefox. I don't see any difference at all. Dream Focus 11:27, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the computer does — you've got a zero-width space between the final two characters of the last name, and Misplaced Pages articles can't include them, except of course for http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=%E2%80%8B&redirect=no. The "a" is the same as normal. Nyttend (talk) 11:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, that's what it is! I saw the code junk before the final letter and assumed the problem was the penultimate letter - hadn't seen a zero-width space before. Mind you, they're probably hard to spot, not having any width... Bencherlite 11:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• Alright, problem solved, thank you. I successfully created the article at Karin Kloosterman‎. Dream Focus 11:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Page moves for User:Dolovis

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.

Dolovis's restriction is amended to only cover titles with diacritics in them. Salvio 11:04, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm bringing this back up, as it slipped into archives without quite being resolved. Please see:

• For the original page move ban for Dolovis in July.
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive227#Page Move Ban for last week's discussion of possibly lifting the ban.

After a couple of comments to the effect that Dolovis should use RM and see how that goes, he replied indicating that he has been doing so. I replied as an RM regular, and we haven't had any problems with him. I asked about the circumstances of the ban, and Dolovis indicated that his attitudes and behavior regarding page moves, in particular those related to diacritics, are different. He agreed with me that when it comes to these things, it's better to skip the 'R' step of BRD, and that there is no such thing as an uncontroversial page move involving diacritics.

This is good enough for me. Nobody indicated that it's not good enough for them. Dolovis asked if I'd close the move, and while I was waiting to do so, the discussion was archived. Dolovis posted to my talk page, but there was a reply from User:Djsasso that he agreed with the objection raised by User:Mjroots. That objection was raised before Dolovis' explanation that satisfied me, and Mjroots never responded to Dolovis' assurances that he won't use page moves the way he did before. If nobody's even going to address these assurances, then I don't get what's going on.

I request that Dolovis be allowed to move pages again, conditional on keeping his word that he won't revert any page move, and that he won't treat any diacritic-related move as uncontroversial. If he doesn't stick to these conditions, then I fully support re-instituting the move ban.

Opinions? -GTBacchus 18:59, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

In particular, here is Mjroots comment: "Per the others above. Use WP:RM for now, once you can demonstrate that you are not going to cause disruption with page moves, the community will consider whether or not to lift the ban." I think that's been demonstrated. If that's not the case, then I think it's fair to ask concretely what it would take to make such a demonstration. -GTBacchus 19:02, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

If I'm interpreting the above correctly, Dolovis has indicated that he'll use WP:RM for any diacritic-related moves... is that correct? 28bytes (talk) 19:30, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

That's my impression, and it's the reason I support lifting the ban. If there's a page-move mess, I'm likely to be one of the janitors cleaning it up, and his statements reassure me that I don't have to worry about that.

Yes, I just explicitly volunteered to help clean up any mess that may result from this, and I'd say in general that I'm available for help with any situation involving page moves. Feel free to tug on my sleeve anytime. -GTBacchus 00:42, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. If he is committing to exclusively using RM for all diacritic-related moves, then I'm on board with lifting the formal restrictions. 28bytes (talk) 06:13, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Well its only been just over two months and he has made very few requests in that time. Now I fully realize not many moves happen very often. But the source of his issues were mostly moving ice hockey player pages (with diacritics specifically). Since the last two months were the summer outside of hockey season the likelihood of him making ice hockey player moves were next to zero. I think it would take a bigger body of work to judge than the 4 move requests he showed in the earlier discussion. That being said he has so far stopped his double edits to prevent others from moving over top of redirects so it does look like he is moving in the right direction. -DJSasso (talk) 19:32, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the point. We'll keep an eye on his page moves. Does he have to find a bunch of pages to nominate for moving to get out from under the gun? This isn't grade-school. Let me be a... cosigner for him. If he screws up, I'll take partial responsibility. Does that help? -GTBacchus 00:42, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe that Dolovis has improved since the page-move ban was imposed. However, if the ban is to be lifted, I'd like an assurance and understanding from Dolovis that he can't just move pages, regardless of whether he believes he is in the right or not. I'm not convinced that a complete page-move ban is preventative, but he should stay away from moving diacritics articles. He should at least be allowed to perform moves that simply correct any typo errors. GTBacchus, in the future, remember to notify the parties when starting a noticeboard discussion. HeyMid (contribs) 22:38, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that reminder, Heymid. That was my absent-mindedness, I'm afraid... I notified two of them because this came up in a thread on my talk page they were part of. Mjroots wasn't there, so my bad. -GTBacchus 00:42, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Dolovis has indicated that he'll treat any diacritic-related move as controversial; i.e., that it has to go through RM. That exchange can be seen in my second link at the top of this section. -GTBacchus 00:49, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

• The purpose of any such ban is to limit or eliminate disruption caused. If Dolovis is agreeing that his diacritic page moves and double edits to redirects so as to prevent non-administrator intervention were disruptive and that he will not resume the same pattern of editing, then the restriction is no longer required. It can, of course, be easily reinstated if old behaviours resurface. Resolute 03:33, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy with that. Dolovis to use RM for moves involving diacritics, but is otherwise free to move articles - a relaxation of the ban rather than it ending. Mjroots (talk) 05:49, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah as long as he understands that if the same issues surface the ban will end up right back I have no problem with relaxing it. I just wanted to make sure it was clear is all. He has in the past when he got stopped from doing one thing found another way to create the same problems but in a different venue so his assurances don't hold as much weight as they might another editor. An example was the issue Sporti brought up in the last discussion. Or when he was creating redirects with two edits so he could prevent others from moving articles. While separate issues they all revolve around the same problem. -DJSasso (talk) 16:45, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

As was accurately described by GTBacchus, I agree that there is no such thing as an uncontroversial page move involving diacritics. What was the catalyst of the attention I received was my bringing attention to that fact by invoking WP:BRD. I trust that all other involved editors are now in agreement, and that in the future all editors will use RM for moves involving diacritics. Dolovis (talk) 04:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

• I'm involved, so I won't do it myself, but I move that this discussion be closed before it's archived again, with a note that consensus seems to support a "relaxation" of the page move ban, subject in particular to the understanding that page moves relating to diacritics are in all cases likely to be controversial, and therefore requiring a full listing at WP:Requested moves. This is also subject to the understanding that disruption relating to page moves may lead to a speedy reinstatement of the ban in the future.

  Does that seem to fairly represent consensus? -GTBacchus 04:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

• I request that thepage move ban be lifted (not certain what "relaxation" means), with the understanding of all parties involved that all page moves involving diacritics are controversial. There will be no disruptive behaviour on my part, and I am delighted to take any diacritics-related page moves through RM. It has always been my position that such moves are controversial, which is why I reverted them, per BRD, when they hit my watch list. Dolovis (talk) 04:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
  • (I agree that it's kind of silly to call it "relaxation", but I try not to get hung up in semantics; it encourages the lawyers... I don't see anyone asking that you be held to a higher standard than we're all held to regarding page moves: if you have reason to know that it's controversial, don't treat it as uncontroversial. That's what we all do, or we'll all be speedy-banned and beaten silly with trouts and clue-by-fours. No fun.

    Side note: I've developed the habit of never editing a redirect after I move a page. I want to make sure than its easy for someone to revert me if they need to. Sticking to a policy like that also saves you ever being accused of editing redirects to prevent your moves being reverted, which is kind of nice, because those conversations are unenlightening and not really related to encyclopedia-building, when you get right down to it. -GTBacchus 05:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC))

    • Actually, I am being held to a higher standard than others. If you read the two ANI's that lead to the ban you will note that the editors who piled-on against me were editors who were themselves actively moving articles to page names using diacritics. I was banned for making double-edits to redirect pages (which I did in an a naive attempt to slow down the controversial moves), not actually for the page moves themselves, which were few and far between. It is time to lift the ban. Dolovis (talk) 12:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Request uninvolved admin to close

Admin GTBacchus has requested here that the page move ban against me be lifted. The request to lift the ban has generated little discussion and has not been opposed, but after a week it still remains unresolved. I am asking that an uninvolved admin please take a look to close this matter before it again slips into the archives. Dolovis (talk) 12:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The request to lift the page move ban has, for the second time, now been moved into the archives. All I am asking for is for the community to take a sober second look at the reasons for the page move ban, and then the action of an uninvolved administrator to lift it. The only reason for a page move ban is to prevent disruptive editing, and I believe that that concern has been fully addressed. Dolovis (talk) 14:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Given the lack of opposition, I propose that the restriction be amended only to cover titles with diacritics in them, as previously discussed. Mjroots (talk) 17:35, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Yep, that was what was agreed to in the previous thread. All that really needs to be done is for an uninvolved admin to rubber stamp this. Jenks24 (talk) 01:29, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I've restored the discussion from the archives so an admin can close it. Cunard (talk) 23:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I've asked an uninvolved admin to take a look at this and maybe close per demonstrated consensus.

Blocked user userpage User:Teach4Morocco

Blocked user userpage User:Teach4Morocco, out of scope.--Musamies (talk) 16:18, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

You can just tag stuff like that G11, you know. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Someone, please close this RFC

Category talk:Anti-abortion violence - discussion on this issue has been going on for months and it would be nice to have an uninvolved admin close the RFC. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Anyone? :( –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:01, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Help with semi-protected article edit request

Hi. I posted a template for assistance some time ago and my request has yet to be properly addressed. Could somebody please glance over here? Thank you. SplashScreen (talk) 00:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Requesting Reopening Of Snow Closure of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in mathematics

Colonel Warden has snow closed 19 hours early Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in mathematics. At least 2 editors before he last logged in queried him of his decision. He had not replied.

I ask the reopening of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in mathematics and let the afd run it's course and let an admin close the discussion.Curb Chain (talk) 11:05, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Point of information: Spartaz has reclosed the discussion as keep (not snow/speedy keep). It was still a little early. LadyofShalott 13:18, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Overdue AfD

Would it be possible for this AfD to be either closed or relisted? Thanks. SuperMarioMan 14:01, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Economy of Iran

Hi,

I am asking 2 things:

1. Please warn and block the anon user here who keeps vandalizing Misplaced Pages. This anon user has been warned and reported to admins already but he/she keeps doing it.

2. Please protect economy of Iran indefinitely so that only established users can edit it.

Thanks. SSZ (talk) 14:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

1. Two edits in as many months isn't generally enough to earn a block. You're free to warn him yourself. If there's something else going on, please point it out.
2. I'm seeing far too much editing by IPs to be comfortable putting a semi on that article. Of the last 50 edits, the vast majority are by IPs, and I don't see the massive levels of vandalism that would be required to justify removing their ability to edit the page. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:26, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Lifebaka. The article is a GA, but there is hardly enough disruption to warrant protection. Drmies (talk) 03:56, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Refactoring other people's comments

In response to User:Beyond My Ken closing User:Ludwigs2's proposal above to allow refactoring of other people's comments, Ludwigs2 has refactored Beyond My Ken's closing comment. This is beyond pointy, IMO. I reverted this once, Ludwigs2 reinstated the refactoring, so I now turn it over to this board to handle. 28bytes (talk) 21:02, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted it again. I don't think there is any way to defend substantively changing the closing statement and leaving it to appear as if the statement was still made by the closer. Monty₈₄₅ 21:07, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

If he does it again, he'll be blocked. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposed lifting of Sarah Palin community probation

I was the editor who originally proposed placing Sarah Palin-related articles on community probation back in January 2009, a proposal that was ultimately adopted. This was in the wake of the wheel war ArbCom case and various other insanity regarding the articles. There have been various flare-ups regarding the articles since - particularly when Bristol Palin appeared on Dancing With the Stars and during the aftermath of the 2011 Tucson shooting, but it always seemed in the context of a political battleground between partisans for a "President Sarah Palin" and partisans of President Obama.

I think things have finally settled down to the point to where we can lift the probation. A few weeks ago, an attack biography by Joe McGinniss about Palin was released, and there was surprisingly little battling over the article - issues were settled easily by talk page discussion. And a couple of days ago, Palin announced she will not be running for President against Obama, which should relieve the partisan pressure on both sides. I propose removing the community probation. Kelly 23:43, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I endorse lifting the probation which has served its purpose. The probation is administered here: Talk:Sarah Palin/Article probation. Except for one warning in September, the last warnings were issued in January 2011. The last two blocks were issued in April 2011 and December 2010. Now that Palin has decided to not run for US president, it is unlikely that she will be as polarizing a figure as she was at the time the probation was voted in by the community. Keeping stale probations in place serves as a disincentive to editors who may legitimately fear getting blocked for engaging in a disagreement. It's time to bring this to a successful conclusion. Any future disruptions can be handled through ordinary procedures.   Will Beback  talk  23:50, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

While I have no issues with the probation being lifted, it may perhaps be better if one were to lift the same a few days (perhaps ten days more?) from now, as the current news of her not running for the post may have died down by then. Wifione 07:56, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Palin will always be in the news. There's no reason to expect that her announcement will lead editors to engage in the disruptive behaviors which led to this community-imposed remedy two-and-a-half years ago. It's been reasonably peaceable for the past year or more.

The effect of lifting this probation is to remove the hair trigger. Any uninvolved admin could no longer topic ban an editor after only a single warning. That's a lower threshold than used with most ArbCom probations, where an enforcement would usually follow a structured discussion and consensus at AE. Lifting the probation would not undo the previous individual topic bans imposed by the ArbCom, the community, or admins under the probation. But it would reaffirm our assumption of the good faith of the current and future editors.   Will Beback  talk  09:27, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

So-called 'educational vandalism' by User:Wbroun

Wbroun (talk · contribs) has been vandalizing articles with the intention of demonstrating to classes that Misplaced Pages can be changed with malicious intent (as it can). However, he has been clearly vandalizing pages since 2007. Although it might be with good intent, it really isn't allowed by policy. I'm not sure exactly what should be done about it, but when confronted previously he maintains that

"No offense, but I edit these strictly for educational purposes in a classroom setting. Students often cite Misplaced Pages on academic papers, something a demonstration of Misplaced Pages's vulnerabilities helps discourage."

I'm not sure exactly needs to be done, but it's a unique situation to say the least. NativeForeigner /_Contribs 00:14, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we could warn him that *leaving* the vandalism in place would be a problem, but if he self-reverted after showing the students the vandalized version rendered, it would be acceptable as a demonstration? Or help him set up a sandbox article for his demonstration, rather than doing it in the main articlespace? (Just my non-admin opinion, as an idea for a way to be able to show it without actively being disruptive.) rdfox 76 (talk) 00:37, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Vandalism only block? "Something a demonstration of Misplaced Pages's blocking policies"? Strictly for educational purposes of course. We want his class to know what happens when folks vandalize Misplaced Pages.--v/r - TP 00:38, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Rdfox 76's proposal of a Sandbox may be a good idea. We could create a WP:FAKEARTICLE in a sandbox on his page. However, vandalizing actual articles even if he reverts is a violation of WP:POINT.--v/r - TP 00:40, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

•  Administrator note I have blocked the account indefinitely as a VOA. We do not promote vandalism of any form on Misplaced Pages. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:42, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

But the thing is he isn't a vandalism only account. Especially earlier in his contribution history he's made valid changes. He is doing this misguidedly, but not out of malice. I think we need to AGF. NativeForeigner /_Contribs 00:44, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I have to agreed with NativeForeigner here. Eagle, you may want to take another look at his contribs. I was joking when I said this was a VOA.--v/r - TP 00:46, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

• Without commenting on the block, I would like to mention that some time ago I created a fake article in my userspace specifically to be used for testing purposes like this. It's at User:Beeblebrox/fake blp. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:49, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I have no tolerance for teachers who believe their vandalizing Misplaced Pages is constructive. I've seen this many times before and it frustrates me to no end. A month or two ago, an IP repeatedly vandalized the Philadelphia Eagles article for "a class assignment." Wbroun edited constructively three years ago, but the only purpose for the account now is to vandalize. WP:VANDNOT does not cover "instructional purposes." Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:53, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it's justified for a block. But in this particular situation indefinite seems unduly harsh. If a hard precedent is set, I have no doubt he'll follow it. NativeForeigner /_Contribs 00:55, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

If Wbroun promises to stop vandalizing, I'll shorten the block. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:57, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Indef is exactly right when we know that vandalism from the account is going to continue. Now, if there's a promise that the vandalism will stop, then we can consider a shorter period. T. Canens (talk) 01:39, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with T. Canens: Eagles' block is spot-on. There are plenty of editors (myself included) who would be willing to work with teachers to get their point across to their students without damaging our articles, but repeatedly disrupting Misplaced Pages to make a point simply can't be tolerated, especially considering they've been repeatedly asked not to. 28bytes (talk) 08:01, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Suppose we want to prove it is possible to go to the moon. How? We (we as in some people just like us) go there once, or a few time to make sure the first was not a rare lucky event. Then we document it. To show such voyage is possible for other people, other generations, you show them the documentation, you do not repeatedly take them to the moon. That is, if Wbroun has done this repeatedly, quite likely he (or someone else of us) may write a nice report - an essay...? - about it. Then he would show it to his class, no need to repeat the process indefinitely. - Nabla (talk) 08:22, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Request for lifting of GA topic ban

Since the 18 April 2011, I was given a topic ban from the good article process on Misplaced Pages for nominating and reviewing articles with little understanding of GA policies, and furthermore repeating them when I had been told not to do so. I was also blocked, , for a week, as a harsh little reminder to abide by the rules; this block was ended early because I accepted mentorship from User:Worm That Turned. Since then I have been editing in almost every other area of the wiki, from article creation and deletion, from userboxes, through RfA and DYK. I also regularly help out at the help desk, and do a regular vandalism patrol. So this shows that I can, and have, kept my nose out of GA for six months and avoided further blocking. I have been in a few scrapes since then, including a misunderstanding of AfD closures and copyright issues.

I am here now to ask for a lifting of that GA topic ban. This does not mean that the second it is lifted I will run around crazily nominating or reviewing with no respect for any guidelines; I am just asking so that if, at anytime in the future, I feel any need to, for instance one of my articles I have created could be good enough to take a review. I have also spent the six months looking at the GA process, looking at nominations, reviews, the criteria, rules, policies, guidelines etc, and promise on my not-currently-blocked user account's life to abide by them.

You may also wish to review my contributions, and read the following links. My editor review, My contributions, , , , and especially here. Thanks, Rcsprinter (talk to me) 16:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Did you run this by your mentor first? If so, what is his opinion of this request? 28bytes (talk) 17:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

He didn't, although he has asked Worm, myself, the administrator who blocked him, and the administrator who imposed the ban, to comment here. Worm takes the view that Rcsprinter has completed his mentorship so he's not technically Rcsprinter's mentor any more, although he's still happy to offer advice where necessary (and I think he intends to comment on this request in due course.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I was trying to decide if I should comment here or move it to AN, since it's not really an incident. Anyway, comment here - Demiurge has correctly summed up my opinion, I "released" Rcsprinter back into the wild back in July, and I think it's commendable that he waited until now to put forward a request to have the topic ban lifted. He's come on a very long way since April (when he'd only been around a few months and made a couple of thousand edits) - to be a mature editor with over 11k edits under his belt. Yes, he made mistakes in the past and I'm sure he'll make them in the future, but I'd trust him to be able to good article reviews. I guess this request is largely to show the community has restored their trust him, and I'd like to see that happen. As such, I'd Support lifting the topic ban. Worm · (talk) 17:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

The copyright discussion on his talk page worries me a bit, to be honest. I haven't done any GA reviews myself, but I would think a solid grasp of the copyright policies would be a prerequisite to useful participation there, wouldn't it? 28bytes (talk) 18:03, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, it's part of 1(a) of the criteria. However, I am confident Rcsprinter does understand copyright policies - he just prioritizes them incorrectly. Demiurge1000 and I are working on encouraging him to remember that copyright is something that is essential to all parts of wikipedia, at all times, and even if an article needs improving, a copyvio is not the way to do it. It may not have been the best time to put this request up, based on those discussions and there's only one person who can tell you why he decided to put it up now. Worm · (talk) 18:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Per 28bytes, I have concerns about the Copyright issues as well as his recent issues with non-Admin AfD closures (particularly related to his reasoning for closure as it would relate to his reasoning when undertaking a GA review) , at this time I'd support a relaxation allowing him to nominate his own articles but would opppose allowing him to nominate articles to which he isn't the primary contributor or undertaking reviews of GA candidates until such time as he has some at least some successful nominations of his own articles to show an understanding of the criteria. This seems to be in line with the reasons he wishes to have the ban lifted and would demonstrate good faith both by him, and in him. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 18:27, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I think this is a good compromise; allow nominations, and if that goes well, expand it to reviews. (The "trial review" idea below also seems like it's worth trying.) 28bytes (talk) 19:08, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

• I'm a little hesitant to support on a whim. Can we just ignore the ban for a minute and have them perform one GA review to demonstrate their competency? If it's fine, I'll fully support and I'm sure everyone else will. If (worst case) they somehow screw up, I'll be happy to simply step in and complete the review for them (I've done so in the past), and decide whether to oppose from there. Swarm 18:34, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

  I think Swarm's proposal is reasonable, support suspending the ban to allow one GA review, and reopen discussion upon completion. Monty₈₄₅ 18:42, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

• Rcsprinter123 asked me to comment here. Because the ban was imposed as a result of the community finding that Rcsprinter123 lacked the understanding of the GA process and criteria that is necessary to participate usefully in GA work, I think that a convincing demonstration how this has now changed would need to be part of any request to lift the ban. As no such demonstration is given here, I cannot support the request at this time. The proposal of allowing a trial review, above, seems reasonable.  Sandstein  18:43, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
• The proposal to allow RCSprinter123 to nominate his own articles for GA should be allowed. As for reviewing others articles, the allowance of a one artice trial is reasonable, but another editor should also give a second opinion on the review. If this proves successful, then maybe a few more articles could be reviewed under the same conditions before a request to release this editor from the restriction can be allowed. Mjroots (talk) 19:05, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I have reservations based on very recent issues brought up on Rcsprinter123's talkpage (for some reason spread through 3 different talkpage archives). I'm not convinced he fully understands the seriousness of copyright issues, purely because these problems have only been in the last week, and I'd like to see positive edits in that area over a longer period. I commend his recent work to clear up problems that have come to light. The AFD problems seem to indicate that he still maybe needs to slow down a little and listen a bit more when he does get into "scrapes". He doesn't always respond when legitimate issues are brought to his talkpage; indeed he has no obligation to, but communication is an important part of GA. I would completely oppose a lift of the ban on reviewing GAs at this time, unless there is compelling evidence that he is able to do so competently. I don't have a problem with him nominating articles at GA, and getting some articles through the GA process could be a good way for him to learn the ropes. --BelovedFreak 19:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Note:Discussion has been moved from Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard. Rcsprinter (chatter) 09:26, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards