Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Beeblebrox (talk | contribs) at 16:37, 29 August 2012 (→Damage at CBS Records: oh yeah, and that). 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.
• To request review of an administrator's action or other use of advanced permissions, use Misplaced Pages:Administrative action review
• 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

This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared.

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 38 as Misplaced Pages:Closure requests/Archive 37 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

Archives

Index no archives yet (create)

This page has archives. Sections older than 2 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 4 sections are present.

• WP:CR
• WP:RFCL
• WP:ANRFC

Use the closure requests noticeboard to ask an uninvolved editor to assess, summarize, and formally close a Misplaced Pages discussion. Do so when consensus appears unclear, it is a contentious issue, or where there are wiki-wide implications (e.g. any change to our policies or guidelines).

Do not list discussions where consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.

Move on – do not wait for someone to state the obvious. In some cases, it is appropriate to close a discussion with a clear outcome early to save our time.

Do not post here to rush the closure. Also, only do so when the discussion has stabilised.

On the other hand, if the discussion has much activity and the outcome isn't very obvious, you should let it play out by itself. We want issues to be discussed well. Do not continue the discussion here.

There is no fixed length for a formal request for comment (RfC). Typically 7 days is a minimum, and after 30 days the discussion is ripe for closure. The best way to tell is when there is little or no activity in the discussion, or further activity is unlikely to change its result.

When the discussion is ready to be closed and the outcome is not obvious, you can submit a brief and neutrally worded request for closure.

Include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing easier. Move discussions go in the 'other types' section.

Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.

Closing discussions carries responsibility, doubly so if the area is contentious. You should be familiar with all policies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion (consult your draft closure at the discussions for discussion page if unsure). Be prepared to fully answer questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that editors may have.

Non-admins can close most discussions. Admins may not overturn your non-admin closures just because you are not an admin, and this is not normally in itself a problem at reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would need tools or edit permissions you do not have access to. Articles for deletion and move discussion processes have more rules for non-admins to follow.

If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here. Instead follow advice at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.

Other areas tracking old discussions

• Misplaced Pages:Requested moves#Elapsed listings
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Old
• Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion
• Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure
• Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion#Old discussions
• Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion#Old business
• Misplaced Pages:Proposed mergers/Log
• Misplaced Pages:Proposed article splits

Administrative discussions

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive367#Close challenge for Talk:1948 Arab–Israeli War#RFC for Jewish exodus

(Initiated 31 days ago on 13 December 2024) challenge of close at AN was archived nableezy - 05:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Sander.v.Ginkel unblock request

(Initiated 29 days ago on 15 December 2024) voorts (talk/contributions) 00:55, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading

Requests for comment

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/In the news criteria amendments

(Initiated 97 days ago on 7 October 2024) Tough one, died down, will expire tomorrow. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 459#RFC_Jerusalem_Post

(Initiated 77 days ago on 28 October 2024) Participation/discussion has mostly stopped & is unlikely to pick back up again. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

 Note: This is a contentious topic and subject to general sanctions. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.  22:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

would like to see what close is. seems like it was option 1 in general, possibly 1/2 for IP area. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 05:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Genocide#RfC: History section, adding native American and Australian genocides as examples

(Initiated 68 days ago on 6 November 2024) RfC expired on 6 December 2024 . No new comments in over a week. Bogazicili (talk) 15:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Team Seas#Re: the ocean pollution additions

(Initiated 59 days ago on 15 November 2024) Clear consensus that the proposed edit (and its amended version) violate WP:SYNTH. However, the owning editor is engaging in sealioning behavior, repeatedly arguing against the consensus and dismissing others' rationale as not fitting his personal definition of synthesis; and is persistently assuming bad-faith, including opening an ANI accusing another editor of WP:STONEWALLING. When finally challenged to give a direct quote from the source that supports the proposed edit, it was dismissed with "I provided the source, read it yourself" and then further accused that editor with bad-faith. The discussion is being driven into a ground by an editor who does not (nor wish to) understand consensus and can't be satisfied with any opposing argument supported by Misplaced Pages policy or guidelines. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 22:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done ThomasO1989; please note that any future closing requests on this page should be neutrally worded. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Israel#RfC

(Initiated 51 days ago on 22 November 2024) Legobot has removed the RFC notice. Can we please get an interdependent close. TarnishedPath 23:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

 Note: Ongoing discussion, please wait a week or two. Bogazicili (talk) 14:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Wicked (2024 film)#RfC on whether credited name or common name should be used

(Initiated 33 days ago on 11 December 2024) Participation mostly slowed, should have an independent close. Happily888 (talk) 10:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

 Done @Happily888: guninvalid (talk) 14:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading

Deletion discussions

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 20#Category:Belarusian saints

(Initiated 24 days ago on 20 December 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 31#Category:Disambig-Class Star Trek pages

(Initiated 12 days ago on 31 December 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 1#Category:Category-Class 20th Century Studios pages of NA-importance

(Initiated 12 days ago on 1 January 2025) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Arab migrations to the Levant#Merger Proposal

(Initiated 110 days ago on 25 September 2024) Open for a while, requesting uninvolved closure. Andre🚐 22:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Winter fuel payment abolition backlash#Merge proposal

(Initiated 76 days ago on 29 October 2024) There are voices on both sides (ie it is not uncontroversial) so a non-involved editor is needed to evaluate consensus and close this. Thanks. PamD 09:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Israel–Hamas war#Survey

(Initiated 67 days ago on 7 November 2024) Looking for uninvolved close in CTOP please, only a few !votes in past month. I realise this doesn't require closing, but it is preferred in such case due to controversial nature of topic. CNC (talk) 10:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

•  Note: I'm happy to perform the merge if required, as have summarised other sections of this article already with consensus. I realise it's usually expected to perform splits or merges when closing discussions, but in this case it wouldn't be needed. CNC (talk) 20:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:You Like It Darker#Proposed merge of Finn (short story) into You Like It Darker

(Initiated 16 days ago on 27 December 2024) Proposed merge discussion originally opened on 30 May 2024, closed on 27 October 2024, and reopened on 27 December 2024 following the closure being overturned at AN. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading

pulp-pedia

Dear administrator,

My article "Ahmet Yalçınkaya" is copied by a website calling itself "pulp-pedia" at the address http://lohere.net/kulkapedia/samuel/Main_page . It is really annoying as they directly copied the article from Misplaced Pages and added profanities to it. Is not there any way to block them or at least to prevent them do this?

It is very important for my poet friend Ahmet Yalcinkaya and for me. I am the editor of the original article after his name. We need urgent help. Thank you.

A. Edip Yazar Editor of the article "Ahmet Yalçınkaya" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edipyazar2 (talk • contribs) 16:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

The licence Misplaced Pages uses allows content to be reused for any purpose, provided the source is attributed and any derivative work (such as this one) is licenced under the same terms. It's just childish vandalism and the content has obviously been copied automatically, I suggest you ignore it. Hut 8.5 16:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

That has got to the lamest Wikipdia parody I have ever seen. I agree, ignore it. I'm sure everyone else will. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:14, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I commented on this website a while back and my larger concern is why Misplaced Pages allows the trademarked puzzle globe to be defaced which is not part of the license agreement. Ignoring it is a viable option but action is in my opinion the better choice. 76Strat  da _Broke da (talk) 17:48, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

You've got a point there about the logo but there is nothing any en.wp admin can do about it. This is a matter for the Wikimedia Foundation's lawyers. This guy is probably a good contact for that. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

This was raised on Geoff's enwiki talk page last month, see User talk:Geoffbrigham#Pulp-pedia. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:13, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Well in that case I'm afraid there is nothing else to be done from here. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Work on this is in process. As Peter noted at Geoff's talk page a little higher in that thread, they are not always easily resolved. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 19:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Possible attempted outing

Could someone please take a look at this thread? StAnselm (talk) 09:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• Still redacted it, but either way I don't see the problem with this. Any user can log on to the WP IRC server and see a user named ArtRubin. It's not like he's trying to hide who he is or obscure the link between his WP account and WP IRC account. Its equivalent to pointing out someone's account on meta. Sædon 09:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Except that I don't have an IRC client.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  • And I don't think have an IRC "account", not that that matters much. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
    • While linking someone's WP username to an IRC account name isn't outing, I feel I should note here that alleging that so-and-so editor is "assigned to deliberately try to provoke you with incivility" (as the IP has done on StillStanding's talk) as part of a conspiracy among a group of editors is the sort of big accusation that needs to be either substantiated or removed. You simply cannot wander around accusing editors of conspiracy - if someone has evidence of such a thing, it needs to go to arbcom, now; if there is no evidence or the person who has the evidence is not willing to submit it for review, that sort of accusation must stop. Now. Do not pass go, do not collect $200. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
      • So how exactly is it "outing" if it is part of WP:WikiProject Conservatism? That is part of the project. I think you need to tone down the rhetoric just a tiny bit. Less fluff and nutter, and more thought and consideration. -- Avanu (talk) 16:35, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
        • ...What? If you re-read what I said, Avanu, you'll find that I said this wasn't outing. I then went on to say that while outing wasn't a concern here, personal attacks were. Not sure what your point about the Wikiproject is intended to convey - perhaps that collusion is the same as collaborating? In which case, no it's not. There's collaborating on articles, and then there's behind-the-scenes collusion with the purpose of getting users blocked, etc - and the latter is what people are alleging here. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:39, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
          • And for the record mocking someone's username like that is the lowest form of argument and reflects very badly on you. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:58, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
            • How can someone named Beeblebrox not know that the lowest form of argument is "Belgium, man, belgium!"? ☺ Uncle G (talk) 20:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
            • If you're going to pick on me, Beeblebrox, at least pick on me for what matters. I didn't read what Fluffernutter said very well and responded too quickly. As for supposedly mocking his name, it wasn't done at all. I used the word "fluff" and the word "nutter" as plays on words, puns, if you will. And while those comments might not have been the lowest form of argument, they certainly are the lowest form of humor. -- Avanu (talk) 03:35, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I am deeply concerned by such words as This would make it rather easy to share IRC logs with me and Could you email me some logs or evidence of collusion? In the past, arbcom has been willing to issue blocks when such evidence is provided. The more evidence of collusion you can provide, the quicker we can get this evidence to arbcom. I would prefer to see the evidence myself rather than sending it directly to arbcom, as evidence sent to them often gets lost due to their list filtering system. which appear to suggest using non-WP sleuthing to attack editors. Not to mention He was designated to the provocation group. Just FYI so that you know when you encounter him, he's assigned to deliberately try to provoke you with incivility. The "combination of ingredients" verges on being directly actionable by a neutral admin. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Is the IRC channel we're talking about public? That's kind of important when it comes to sharing IRC logs. I agree, the claims made are quite strong and require some evidence. Which leads us right back to the logs and the question of whether the channel is public. --Conti|✉ 18:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

To ensure that there's no suspicion of impropriety perhaps it would be useful for a couple of neutral adminms to idle the channel. 92.30.189.148 (talk) 18:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

What's the channel name? IRWolfie- (talk) 19:02, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the entirety of the accusation is that there exists a channel that's being used for collusion by nebulous people from a Wikiproject. Without actual evidence of what channel and what the problem behavior is, there's really nothing anyone can do to stop what may or may not be happening. Even if we did know the channel name, IRC is not Misplaced Pages - we don't deploy WP administrators to run things on IRC, and even if we did such a thing, people could just start a new channel where the admins weren't deployed. We can control IRC behavior only inasmuch as it affects onwiki behavior - which is to say, if you run a conspiracy on IRC to edit WP in manner X, WP admins can keep you from editing Misplaced Pages in that manner (generally by having Arbcom address the conspiracy), but we can't keep you from talking about it on places that aren't here.

All those things said, however, I would note that there is currently no evidence available of any conspiracy-style malfeasance, on IRC or elsewhere, and until such evidence is presented, it's moot to discuss handling a conspiracy that cannot be shown to exist. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I should point out that some editors are attempting to gather evidence of a conspiracy at User talk:StillStanding-247/RfC. StAnselm (talk) 20:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

And I should point out that the RFC is not about conspiracy theories. It's rooted in diffs of actual edits, not anything imagined. Please be more civil when summarizing our efforts. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm just wondering if the wikiproject has a public channel. I assume some wikiprojects do have them. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it is possible to see if an admin can connect the ip to an account? IRWolfie- (talk) 19:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

That was already done. It's connected to User:SkepticAnonymous which you can see in the block log here . Now Viriditas has already confirmed that he has the IRC logs shown by his edit here ViriiK (talk) 06:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, maybe you should have notified me about this conversation, since it's about the contents of my own talk page? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Anyhow, I don't know what to make of this IP's claims. My immediate response was to give them my email address so they could send me logs, but they have not done so. Without logs, there's no question of going to Arbcom or whatever. I guess it might be helpful if WikiProject Conservatism would address the claims, at least by telling us whether there's an IRC channel that they use. That seems to me like a reasonable request to make. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I asked Lionelt formally to confirm this. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Is it me or is this crap a loaded question? Deny and Viriditas will bring out the IRC logs that he confirmed receiving from User:SkepticAnonymous and they go ahead and file an RFC against Lionelt. Confirm and they file an RFC anyways. ViriiK (talk) 06:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

He should affirm or deny solely on the basis of what's true. The truth is a safe bet. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:29, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

You're in no position to force anything on anyone especially Lionelt. Especially when you're collaborating with Viriditas on an RFC against Lionel and are sitting on an IRC log which is highly dubious coming from a banned editor. ViriiK (talk) 06:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• Just so it's out in the open, the IP that purports to have these logs is an indeffed user: He's not exactly a paragon of credibility. If there's any "safe bet" here, it wouldn't be one that hinges on the IP's honesty. Belchfire-TALK 06:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• And just so you know, the IP is no longer indeffed and is currently unblocked. Viriditas (talk) 08:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• The user is still indeffed: 15:54, 4 August 2012 Dennis Brown (talk | contribs) changed block settings for SkepticAnonymous (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite (account creation blocked, cannot edit own talk page) (Personal attacks or harassment)

The IP was, inexplicably, not indeffed: 23:07, 23 August 2012 Guerillero (talk | contribs) blocked 76.31.236.81 (talk) (account creation blocked, e-mail disabled, cannot edit own talk page) with an expiry time of 48 hours (This is a duck: Block Evasion User:SkepticAnonymous/User:98.195.86.32)

He was given a 48-hour block that has expired. Viriditas, are you claiming that the expiration of the block somehow improves his credibility??? Belchfire-TALK 16:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

As I predicted, it is a loaded question. Bad advice. Nothing would make him look guiltier than refusing to answer this extremely pertinent question. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC) ViriiK (talk) 06:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Like I said, I encourage you to simply tell the truth. Neither silence nor lies will work in your favor. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for proving my point. ViriiK (talk) 06:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

ViriiK, I say "the truth will set you free" and you respond with "a-hah!". :-) I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

He's not required to respond to your loaded question because you are in no position to force him to do so. You have a genuine conflict of interest here since are you filing an RFCU in collaboration with Viriditas against the WikiProject that Lionelt is a part of and also are sitting on an IRC log that implicated an admin here. ViriiK (talk) 06:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

As I said, I can't force him to answer. However, if he refuses to, that's going to look bad. That's why I helpfully suggested that he should simply speak the truth. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Going to look bad how? Oh right, crystalball here. Any answer will look bad since A) he denies and you in collaboration with Viriditas is sitting on an IRC log that implicates an admin and you file an RFCU or B) He confirms and you file an RFCU or C) Omission of any statement makes the accusation look true and you still file an RFCU against Lionelt and the WikiProject. Hence the point of the loaded question because you are expecting something to buffer your point. ViriiK (talk) 07:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Again, I don't have a crystal ball, remember? It all depends on things that are not yet clear. That's why it's best to clear the air and end the idle speculation. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it's best to clear the air and drop the issue. An admin was namedropped here. ViriiK (talk) 07:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Like I said, it would look bad for him if he didn't answer. For his own sake, he should answer. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

For his own sake, this isn't about him. ViriiK (talk) 07:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

It's about his WikiProject. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

This report is about his Wikiproject? You're saying that the dubious and banned editor who namedropped an admin is about Lionelt's Wikiproject? You're the one here trying to pull the Wikiproject into the picture. Arthur already denied he has an account on IRC and yet you're doing everything in your powers to compel Lionelt to respond to any form of answer that you want because it's obvious at this point that you've planned out this loaded question quite carefully. ViriiK (talk) 07:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I've had that IP editor's comments on my talk page for about five days now, and I've done nothing. I asked them to mail me the logs, but they didn't. I left this alone until StAnselm brought it up here. Don't look at me: he did it.

Arthur denied having an account, but said nothing about this supposed WikiProject Conservatism IRC channel. I haven't asked him because he's not in charge of WikiProject Conservatism, so he's not the one who can give an official response. Note that you don't even need an account for IRC; any unused nick will do and I can't imagine there are that many ArtRubin's out there. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

So do ask Viriditas for the logs. He has them. After all, you are collaborating with him quite intimately on an RFCU draft. The issue here is that an admin was namedropped here and it most definitely is not about the Wikiproject. Until now when you started commenting, no one cared about the Wikiproject. Are you here to accuse Arthur Rubin of being ArtRubin since you are trying to get confirmation of this obviously fictional IRC channel? You know who the focus should be on? SkepticAnonymous since he is the one that made the unsubstantiated accusation of this channel existing or Arthur Rubin being a member of especially you are the one using the accusation as evidence that this IRC channel might exist but it is extremely unlikely. Only Viriditas can give us the logs since he has confirmed that he has them at least according to his talk page. ViriiK (talk) 07:26, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

It may well be the case that you know more about this than I do, as I saw Viriditas' comment and it seems ambiguous to me. It does suggest that the IP sent him a message, but it says nothing about the contents. The email could say something like "There are no logs, I'm just messing with them" or "Yeah, sure, I've got tons of logs, but I'm not sharing" or anything else. After all, if there is no channel, there can be no real logs, right?

Rather than playing guessing games, I'm going to open up my question to everyone. If anyone here knows about the existence (or non-existence) of a WikiProject Conservatism IRC channel, I would appreciate it if you would share the information publicly. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:35, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

If Viriditas is acting as a proxy for SkepticAnonymous, should he be blocked? I don't think it's a good idea, but acting as a proxy for a banned user is grounds for an indefinite block.

And, even if that's not the case, I don't think Lionelt should answer. You (StillStanding) won't believe anything he says.

<redacted further comment about StillStanding> — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The IP claims he isn't SkepticAnonymous, and I'm not acting as a proxy for anyone. If he wants to release the logs, he will. I have nothing to do with it. Further, the IP is no longer blocked, so it is safe to assume we will see him around here with a new account at some point. Or not. Viriditas (talk) 08:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Lionelt wouldn't be telling me, he'd be making an official statement. Clearly, he has declined to do so. And on that note, I'm declaring this bit of drama over. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 08:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

You declare nothing. Now, Viriditas, you confirmed at least on your talk page that you received the logs or at least the email from SkepticAnonymous with your comment of "Got it. Thanks." I'm sure any administrator (other than Arthur obviously for COI reasons) here can now investigate the email sent to Viriditas' email to look at the content thereof (with privacy given of course). The reason for this is because Viriditas did direct the IP/Skeptic to email him via the Misplaced Pages system Also that's not what the blocklog says, Viriditas. How do you know it was not SkepticAnonymous on that IP address? The expiration on that block was not an indefinite one so it was likely an oversight on the blocker's part. ViriiK (talk) 08:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The IP, who is currently unblocked, says he is not "SkepticAnonymous", so please stop referring to him as such. The logs in question belong to the IP. You are welcome to contact him on his user talk page and talk to him yourself. The block was not an oversight. I requested the unblock because I predicted that an editor like yourself would make this request. As talk page access has been restored, you are free to request the logs from the IP yourself. Viriditas (talk) 08:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Why your expressed interest defending in IP editor/SkepticAnonymous and defending his actions thereof? It literally says to me that he did email you the IRC logs. I request that you post these IRC logs publicly since that IP editor is accusing Arthur Rubin of being a member of a fictional IRC channel. Now I suggest that this IP editor also be blocked for namedropping an administrator. Do you object, Viriditas? If so, why? ViriiK (talk) 08:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

You appear to be very confused about the chronology of events. Let me help you understand: I requested the IRC logs at 19:24, 23 August 2012 (UTC). The IP wasn't accused of being banned editor "SkepticAnonymous" until the next day at 6:07, 24 August 2012 (UTC), an accusation that was based on weak circumstantial evidence. Therefore, how could I be defending a banned editor when 1) I requested the logs from an IP who was not yet accused of being a banned editor, and 2) the editor is currently unblocked. Viriditas (talk) 09:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

You realize I don't care about the chronology of events? You're stonewalling. ViriiK (talk) 09:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The logs don't belong to me. They are the personal property of the IP. You'll have to request them from him just like I did. Viriditas (talk) 09:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

So you do have them? Thank you for confirming this. ViriiK (talk) 09:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Please pay close attention: I have in my possession what the IP claims are IRC logs. I have no way of knowing if these IRC logs are real or not. They could be forgeries for all I know. Viriditas (talk) 09:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Please pay close attention. You have in your possessions that accuses multiple people of collaborating in a likely fictional channel that also accuses an administrator of collaborating to affect Misplaced Pages. Post the logs. http://www.pastebin.com ViriiK (talk) 09:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe it is against policy and best practice to do such a thing, which is why I have not posted them. I should also note that it is not clear if it is real or fictional, so your claim that it is "likely" fictional is not yet proven. Viriditas (talk) 09:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

As you (Viriditas) should know, we don't indef IPs. In this case, the IP appears to be stable over a period of a month or so, so a true sock-block should have been for more than 48 hours. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:59, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I said, "good day". I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 08:50, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Anent which shows an editor seeking to be Sherlock Holmes tracking down clues. To wit - asking folks at a wikiproject if such an IRC channel exists. Which seems to be to be quite outside the reasonable purview of any editor, as a matter of fact. BTW, before any editor decides to accuse me of anything at all, I am now over 25K edits, have a watchlist of over 2,500 pages, and my politics are shown <g> by such edits as , , and . Collect (talk) 09:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• I suggest logs if they have been received should be forwarded on to arbcom to look at and not made publics. Logs should not be made public due to any potential outing or other issues as they may contain information about IPs etc. (Personally if the channel doesn't exist I don't know why people aren't saying that it categorically doesn't exist) IRWolfie- (talk) 10:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree, however, I believe the IP should be the one to forward the logs to arbcom. If someone could actually prove that the IRC channel exists, I might get involved, but so far, nobody can prove there is any such channel. Viriditas (talk) 10:25, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

If you have purported logs forward them to arbcom, I see no reason why the IP should. They can check out the veracity of the claims IRWolfie- (talk) 10:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The logs don't belong to me, and there is no indication of authenticity. If someone, anyone, can prove the IRC channel exists, then I will ask the IP if I can forward them to arbcom, otherwise I will let the IP deal with this as the logs belong to him. Viriditas (talk) 10:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

All I am reminded of is "I have a list" .... which is to say, absent any evidence you are willing to bring forth, you are willing to make charges about Misplaced Pages editors. Sorry Viridutas, that does not fly. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:13, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

That appears to be approximately the opposite of what Viriditas just stated. Hal peridol (talk) 18:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Someone needs to hat this thread. It is an attempted outing. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

As far as the issue of the logs being real or not, I would point out that SkepticAnonymous has a known history of falsifying IRC logs and attempting to use them against other editors. I realize that there is some dispute here (at least by Viriditas) about whether the IP is SA, but if it is that person, the logs are extremely unlikely to be accurate, or even necessarily reflect a real channel. This is yet another reason these logs should be sent to arbcom by anyone who has them - we do not address the issue of off-wiki collusion by emailing logs to friends/colleagues, but neither do we address the issue of possibly-falsified charges that way. In both these cases, the proper action is to send the logs to a body which actually has the ability to investigate the charges in question. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree, I also asked an arb Newyorkbrad, see here: User_talk:Newyorkbrad#Possibly_fake_IRC_logs. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

This entire conversation concerns me greatly; it appears that there has formed a a group of editors who are attempting to smear allegations against another group of editors who are connected to WikiProject Conservatism. I have seen a bunch of allegations in the past regarding such claims, but no proof. In the past those who don't like the efforts of the WikiProject to bring articles with a liberal bias in line with a more neutral tone per WP:NPOV have attacked userpage essays and specific editors, at times making blatant personal attacks that are not keeping with WP:CIVIL. This, and other witch hunts, need to stop,for the sake of the Project.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

No, I think that some editors are concerned that the Conservatism WikiProject seems based on the belief that Misplaced Pages suffers from a liberal bias, and views it role as "correcting" that liberal bias by editing from a politically conservative perspective. In other words, as your comment amply illustrates, the project's founding concept is that Misplaced Pages is an ideological battleground where conservatives are "losing". That evident intent—to use the project to band together to advance a political ideology—is concerning to some Wikipedians. MastCell  17:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Even if we pretend for the sake of the argument that you are right (you aren't), would that somehow justify and excuse the extremely flagrant battleground tactics being employed by Viriditas and Still-24? Belchfire-TALK 17:50, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure how I could be "right" or "wrong". I'm telling you how things look to me (and to a number of other Wikipedians), based on comments that WikiProject members have made about the goals and motivations of the WikiProject and its members. The WikiProject views Misplaced Pages as infested with "liberal bias", and its goal as coordinating editors to combat that perceived bias. That's the self-description provided by RightCowLeftCoast above, and repeatedly by other project members elsewhere.

My impression of Still is that s/he treats Misplaced Pages as an ideological battleground. And he's found the perfect foil in your WikiProject, which also treats Misplaced Pages as an ideological battleground. Arguably, the WikiProject brings up the additional concern of coordinating groups of editors to edit along ideological lines, which multiplies the problem. MastCell  18:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I think MastCell is quite right. It's pretty hard to interpret the discussion right here as anything other than a bilateral battleground. Whatever the merits of the claims about the IRC, I don't see anyone here trying to out anyone else. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

So to bring neutrality to articles is wrong? Is that what others are saying? So any bias that is already ingrained into an article should be preserved? So any material, that maybe perceived by others as being conservative, should be excluded?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• Following Fluffernutter's suggestion above, I have emailed a copy of the alleged IRC log to arbcom, along with a couple of comments of my own which I will not repeat here. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:18, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Demiurge, you need to be a bit more specific. You appear to be referring to IRC logs related to this incident, not the IRC logs under discussion as the main topic of this thread. I had to read your comment three times before I was even able to figure it out. For the record, unless the IP has sent the logs under discussion to arbcom, they have not been sent. Yes, I said logs, not log. Viriditas (talk) 20:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
    • No, I'm not referring to IRC logs related to that incident. I think I still have a log of that incident, but I see no reason why arbcom would be interested in seeing it. As for this discussion, the IP only sent me one log, and that's what I sent to arbcom. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:18, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
      • It's abundantly clear, on even a cursory inspection, that the log Demiurge sent ArbCom is not genuine and was faked (not claiming that Demiurge tampered with it, but rather assuming, based on the comments of others, that he received the already-faked log). Unless someone with access to the alleged genuine logs is willing to provide them to the Arbitration Committee, I would suggest that these allegations be dropped immediately. Hersfold 02:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

That's interesting. If I may ask, what gave it away? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I've declined to provide details on this on Fluffernutter's talk page, where Viritidas was more-or-less asking the same thing. The reason I'm not going to answer that is the same reason we don't provide much detail on a sockpuppeteer's "tells" at SPI - there simply is no sense in pointing out what gives an abusive user away, as that makes it that much easier for them to note their mistakes and correct them in future. What I will say is that there were multiple errors, which were independently noted by myself, another arbitrator, and Demiurge in his comments when he sent the log. Any of these errors on their own would have made it blatantly obvious that the logs were fabricated. Hersfold 02:47, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• Honestly, this is silly and should be closed. An IP was possibly trolling these editors or possibly sending valid evidence. One way or the other, there was no outing by suggesting Arthur Rubin was chatting with people and without these alleged logs being made available there is nothing anyone here can do about that issue either. All this talk about the Conservatism Wikiproject is straying off-topic and should wait for the planned RfC if it materializes. It would be nice if an admin would just close this on the basis that the only stuff that isn't settled already should be addressed elsewhere.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
• This discussion thread should be closed. The discussion is no longer about the original topic, which was an accusation of "outing". That accusation is invalid because the editor who was supposedly outed has openly disclosed his identity. Since no evidence has been presented that there is off-wiki canvassing, that part of the discussion should be closed too and taken up with ARBCOM if any evidence is found. TFD (talk) 20:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Reminder concerning "review by ArbCom only" blocks

This is just a general reminder for administrators of a statement that has been posted in the past.

At times, in blocking an editor, an administrator will note that the block "should only be lifted by the Arbitration Committee" or that "any appeal from this block is to ArbCom or BASC only." This notation is appropriate in circumstances when the block is based upon a concern that should not be discussed on-wiki but only in a confidential environment. This could include situations where discussion would reveal or emphasize information whose disclosure could jeopardize an editor's physical or mental well-being, where on-wiki discussion would identify anonymous editors, or where the underlying block reason would be defamatory if the block proved to be unjustified.

In such cases, the blocking administrator should immediately notify the Arbitration Committee mailing list by e-mail of the block and of the reasons for it. This is important so that the arbitrators can evaluate such blocks as needed and will have the background to consider any appeals or if any further actions concerning the blocked editor are required.

If an administrator is unsure whether this type of block is justified, he or she should feel free to e-mail the Arbitration Committee mailing list before blocking.

Thank you.

For the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Good point, and thanks for the notice. Nyttend (talk) 21:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Was there a situation that led to the need to post this? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:00, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

List of American Catholics issue

List of American Catholics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Hi,

I wanted to edit the pathetically short list of American Catholics. So, naturally, I go to look them up, list the names, and try to come back with the citation once ai have all the names down, to make things go faster. This guy keeps taking them off and leaves aggressive messages, like this one:

This is your last warning. You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to List of American Catholics.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 00:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC) It doesn't work that way. You don't add something to an article because you suspect it to be true. You find the sources before you add the names. And it doesn't matter how many Catholics live in a country. You have to source every name you add to that list. And the sources must be reliable; see WP:RS. You are still subject to a block if you add any more information to Misplaced Pages without proper sources. You've been given more than sufficient warning. Cresix (talk) 01:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC) And please note that someone must self-identify as Catholic as an adult. Being brought up in a Catholic family is not sufficient. Being "baptized and confirmed Catholic" is not sufficient. Going to Catholic school is not sufficient. Being "Irish and Italian" is not sufficient. BTW, I'm also Catholic; you don't have to explain Church policies to me; what the Church says doesn't matter here in identifying someone as Catholic. Cresix (talk) 01:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC) Regarding Alec Baldwin and Jimmy Fallon: Please stop it. As I clearly explained above, Baldwin stating that he has an "Irish Catholic background" does not mean that he identifies himself as Catholic as an adult. See WP:BLPCAT. This is your FINAL WARNING. Cresix (talk) 14:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Alec Baldwin has been married in the church and he is getting married again, seeking a Catholic wedding. The article I submitted about Jimmy Fallon mentioned him trying to go back to church in L.A., he was an altar boy, for heaven's sake! Matt Damon is married to a woman who is definitely a Catholic and so are all of his daughters...something tells me dear old Dad approved (and IMDB was not the only soure I had to choose from, hell, the man and Kevin Smith lampooned the church in Dogma to the point I peed my pants and I am from Boston: do I need to round up all the people who knew him before he was famous, including his mother, before I can get captain crankypants to back off?!.) Desi Arnaz raised all of his kids as Catholic, sent them to Catholic schools and colleges and his ex-wife Lucille almost converted for him; he married her a second time in, in a Catholic church. Every person I submitted may not necessarily be a GOOD Catholic, but all of them are baptized into the church, all of them have taken the Sacraments, which are the requirements for full membership, and none of them have ever once said anything about leaving the church and there is no evidence they have!!! Frankly. I am going bonkers-does this guy need to see a famous Catholic tear off the tux at the Academy Awards and reveal a cardinal's robe underneath for him to accept the criteria?! I myself am also a Catholic, and I fear the parish that has this crazy editor as its member!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.7.218.103 (talk) 16:53, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

You are getting good advice and should listen to it. Read WP:BLPCAT and WP:CAT/R. "been married in the church", "was an altar boy" and "married to a woman who is definitely a Catholic" are not enough. JohnCD (talk) 17:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Two things:

1. You appear to be engaging in original research which is not in fact permissible

  −

2. You are most certainly engaging in completely unnaceptable personal attacks. It is unlikely anyone will be interssted in even talking to you if this is how you ask for help. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I was raised Catholic (baptized, first communion, confirmation, CCD awards), and my first marriage was in the church (so as not to alienate my future mother-in-law), but even then I did not consider myself to be Catholic. The only reliable indication of a person's reigious beliefs is a statement by the person: "I am Catholic." Anything else is interpretation or anaylsis, i.e. WP:OR. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

To back up what the others have said and to directly refute some of your OR: I have a family member who had a Catholic wedding to a Catholic man; all of her children have been baptized Catholic. Using your logic, we'd assume she's Catholic she is not Catholic though. We absolutely require self-identification of a person as being in a religion to categorize/list them them in that religion. LadyofShalott 01:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

As I understand it , this is strictly true only of BLP--but of course this is a BLP; it is probably permissible to simple state the relevant material in the bio without trying to draw any conclusion or use a category, & people will make of it what they will. DGG ( talk ) 07:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

BLP is simply a matter of priority. All biographies should follow the rules we assume of BLPs: it is simply that BLPs are more urgent, and thus we waive a certain degree of AGF when it comes to incompletely sourced additions to them. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Mass creation of redirects to Wikitionary

I was tagging a bunch of articles for speedy deletion - but then I scrolled through the list and saw just how many Tinton5 created... It looks like they did not fully read the terms of Template:Wi, which specifically states, "This template is only for dictionary definitions that currently exist on Wiktionary and which, due to previous re-creations, are likely to be re-created in unencyclopedic form. Do not place it on every possible word." As the pages they created, (located here), were not previously created (at least the ones I looked at), they are therefore WP:A3 - as their only content, the template, can not be placed on them. Admin deletion assistance? Thanks. Theopolisme 23:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

v t e Members of the U.S. House of Representatives from New York
Districts 1-10 (active) 1st district Floyd, W. • Tredwell • Havens • Smith • Riker • Wickes • Riker • Sage • (Two Seat era Seat A: Lefferts • Crocheron • Scudder • Wood • Seat B: Sage • Townsend • Guyon • Colden) • Wood • Lent • Huntington • Jackson • Floyd • Strong • Lawrence • Lord • King • Floyd, J. • Maurice • Valk • Searing • Carter • Smith • Stebbins • Townsend • Taber • Reeves • Townsend • Scudder • Metcalfe • Covert • Belmont • Covert • McCormick • Belford • Scudder • Storm • Scudder • Cocks • Littleton • Brown • Hicks • Bacon • Hall • Sharp • Macy • Greenwood • Wainwright • Pike • Carney • Hochbrueckner • Forbes • Grucci • Bishop 2nd district Laurance • Watts • Livingston • Mitchill • Sands • Mumford • (Two Seat era Seat A: Mumford • Paulding • Benson • Irving • Meigs • Cambreleng • Seat B: Denning • Mitchill • Post • Wendover • Morgan) • Tyson • Sands • Wood • Crocheron • Bergen • Van Houten • Barton • Vanderveer • De La Montanya • Egbert • Murphy • Seaman • Murphy • Bokee • Bowne • Cumming • Stranahan • Taylor • Humphrey • Odell • Kalbfleisch • Bergen • Barnes • Schumaker • Kinsella • Schumaker • Veeder • O'Reilly • Robinson • Campbell • Boody • Chapin • Clancy • Hurley • Fitzgerald • Lindsay • O'Leary • Caldwell • Kindred • Brunner • Barry • Hall • Derounian • Grover • Downey • Lazio • Israel 3rd district Benson • Van Cortlandt • Mitchill • Clinton • Fisk • Van Cortlandt, Jr. • Denoyelles • Ward • Tompkins • Pierson • (Three and Four Seat era Seat A: Cambreleng • Grinnell • Ferris • Seat B: Morgan • Johnson • White • Lee • Curtis • Wood • Seat C: Sharpe • Verplanck • Selden • Ferris • Moore • Monroe • Roosevelt • Seat D: Lawrence • Morgan • McKeon • Hoffman • McKeon) • Phoenix • Miller • Nicoll • Phoenix • Hart • Walbridge • Pelton • Sickles • Wood • Odell • Humphrey • Hunter • Robinson • Slocum • Woodford • Chittenden • Smith • James • White • Wallace • Coombs • Hendrix • Wilson, F. H. • Driggs • Bristow • Dunwell • Foelker • Maher • Wilson, F. E. • Flynn • MacCrate • Kissel • Lindsay • Pfeifer • Latham • Becker • Derounian • Wolff • Roncallo • Ambro • Carman • Mrazek • King 4th district Hathorn • Schoonmaker • Van Gaasbeck • Hathorn • Elmendorf • Van Cortlandt • Emott • Oakley • Schenck • Tallmadge • Street • Van Wyck • Frost • Ward • Cowles • Ward • Kemble • Ward • Maclay • Underhill • Haws • Walsh • Kelly • Barr • Kerrigan • Wood • Jones • Fox • Roosevelt • Crooke • Bliss • Campbell • Mahoney • Clancy • Coombs • Fischer • Clayton • Hanbury • Wilson • Law • Wilson • Dale • Cullen • Rooney • Barry • McMahon • Clemente • Latham • Halpern • Wylder • Lent • Levy • Frisa • McCarthy 5th district Silvester • Bailey • Brooks • Bailey • Tillotson • Bailey • McCord • Blake • Gardenier • Cooke • Grosvenor • Schuyler • Strong • Patterson • Van Wyck • White • Oakley • Taber • Bockee • Pendleton • Bockee • Titus • Johnson • Davis • Leonard • Woodruff • Tallmadge • Briggs • Tweed • Whitney • Maclay • Wall • Wood • Taylor • Morrissey • Roberts • Meade • Muller • Bliss • Magner • Graham • Bennet • Wilson • Bassett • Waldo • Young • Redfield • Maher • Johnston • Kline • Black • Evans • Heffernan • Roe • Ross • Quinn • Ross • Bosch • Addabbo • Becker • Tenzer • Lowenstein • Lent • Wydler • McGrath • Ackerman 6th district Van Rensselaer • Gordon • Gilbert • Homer • Bird • Van Ness • Bloom • Verplanck • (Two Seat era Seat A: Knickerbocker • Fitch • Seat B: Livingston • Grosvenor) • Fisk • Wilkin, J. • Case • Tuthill • Borland • Craig • Hallock • Craig • Eager • Wilkin, S. • Brown • Jones • Clinton • Fish • Campbell • Jackson • Greeley • Brooks • Wheeler • Cochrane • Conkling • Ward • Raymond • Stewart • Cox • Brooks • Cox • Muller • Cummings • Fitzgerald • Turner • Fellows • Magner • Howe • May • Lindsay • Baker • Calder • Rowe • Lee • Stengle • Sommers • Delaney • Nodar • Delaney • Holtzman • Rosenthal • Halpern • Wolff • LeBoutillier • Addabbo • Waldon • Flake • Meeks 7th district Van Alen • Thompson • Thomas • Hasbrouck, J. • Schuneman • Gardenier • Van Rensselaer • Bleecker • Hasbrouck, A. J. • Betts • Hasbrouck, J. • De Witt • Ruggles • Jenkins • Hasbrouck, A. B. • Belden • DeWitt • Brodhead • Bodle • Sickles • Brodhead • Palen • Van Buren • Anderson • Nelson • Stephens • Walker • Child • Ward • Briggs • Ward • Chanler • Calkin • Ely • Creamer • Ely • Field • Eickhoff • Einstein • Dugro • Dorsheimer • Adams • Bryce • Dunphy • Bartlett • Vehslage • Muller • Lessler • Fitzgerald • Delaney • Maher • Hogan • Quayle • Delaney • Heller • Delaney • Addabbo • Rosenthal • Ackerman • Manton • Crowley 8th district Glen • Van Rensselaer • Livingston • Van Alen • Thompson • Pond • Sherwood • Adams • Root • Kirtland • Clark • McCarty • Strong • King • (Two Seat era Seat A: Adams • Efner • Pratt • Ely • Houck • Seat B: Vanderpoel • McClellan • Vanderpoel • McClellan) • Davis • Woodworth • Warren • Halloway • Dean • Cutting • Wakeman • Clark • Delaplaine • Brooks • Dodge • Brooks • Lawson • Ward • McCook • Adams • Cox • Campbell • McCarthy • Campbell • Dunphy • Walsh • Mitchell • Riordan • Creamer • Sullivan • Riordan • Griffin • Cleary • Bond • Cleary • Carley • Tonry • O'Toole • Pfeifer • Anfuso • Heller • Anfuso • Rosenthal • Scheuer • Nadler 9th district Gordon • Williams • Platt • Walker • Van Rensselaer, K. • Sammons • Lovett • Westerlo • Van Rensselaer, S. • Van Rensselaer, S. III • Hogeboom • McManus • Dickinson • Pierson • Hunt • Vail • Hunt • Clinton • Niven • St. John • McKissock • Murray • Peck • Clarke • Haskin • Haight • Herrick • Darling • Wood • Mellish • Schell • Wood • Hardy • Pulitzer • Cox • Cummings • Campbell • Miner • Bradley • Goldfogle • O'Brien • Swift • O'Connell • Petersen • O'Connell • Rudd • Keogh • Delaney • Ferraro • Manton • Schumer • Weiner 10th district Talbot • Cooper • Cochran • Cooper • Morris • Tibbits • Masters • Nicholson • Stow • Moffitt • Cushman • Dickinson • Rensselaer, S. III • Spencer • Lansing • Gallup • Barnard • Russell • Gordon • Sherrill • Gould • Schoonmaker • Murray, W. • Murray, A. • Van Wyck • Radford • Robertson • Potter • Wood • Hewitt • O'Brien • Hewitt • Spinola • Cockran • Sickles • Cummings • Swann • Sulzer • Metz • Haskell • Volk • Celler • Sommers • Kelly • Celler • Biaggi • Schumer • Towns
Districts 11-20 (active) 11th district Palmer • Sailly • Thompson • Gold • Taylor • Foote • Ashley • Hobbie • King • Root • Cramer • De Graff • Brown • Doe • Linn • Pratt • Silvester • Sutherland • Westbrook • King • Russell • Kenyon • Steele • Winfield • Van Wyck • Greene • Van Wyck • John • Potter, C. • Willis • Morton • Flower • Potter, O. • Merriman • Quinn • Warner • Cummings • Sulzer • Hearst • Fornes • Riordan • Prall • O'Leary • Buck • Heffernan • Celler • Keogh • Brasco • Scheuer • Towns • Owens • Clarke 12th district Thomas • Wilson • Root • Metcalf • (Two Seat era Seat A: Shipherd • Adgate • Palmer • Gross • Walworth • Seat B: Winter • Savage • Pitcher) • Eaton • Dietz • De Graff • Borst • Bouck • Martindale • Russell • Blair • Seymour • Herrick • Ripley • Reynolds • Seymour • Dean • Teller • Miller • Thompson • Beale • Baker • Nelson • Ketcham • St. John • Odell • Potter • Hutchins • Dowdney • Cockran • Flower • Little • Cockran • McClellan • Cockran • Conry • Goldfogle • London • Goldfogle • London • Dickstein • Rooney • Dorn • Carey • Kelly • Chisholm • Owens • Velázquez 13th district Sammons • Swart • Tracy • Boyd • Yates • Lawyer • Peek • Gebhard • Williams • Angel • Chase • Angel • Whallon • Farlin • Palmer • Hand • Tomlinson • Barnard • Wood • Slingerland • Schoolcraft • Sage • Olin • Steele • Hubbell • Cornell • Griswold • Tuthill • Whitehouse • Ketcham • Viele • Fitch • Warner • Shannon • Levy • Belmont • Harrison • Parsons • Levy • Sullivan • Loft • Sullivan • Capozzoli • O'Toole • Multer • Podell • Solarz • Molinari • Fossella • McMahon 14th district Root • Russell • Mathews • Avery • Markell • Cady • Herkimer • Fay • Conkling • Storrs • Beardsley • Gillet • Spencer • Fine • Van Rensselaer • Rogers • Culver • Kellogg • Andrews • Boyd • Peckham • Dickson • Corning • Reynolds • Corning • Pruyn • Goodyear • Pruyn • Mayham • Perry • De Witt • Beebe • Ferdon • Beach • Stahlnecker • Fellows • Quigg • Chanler • Douglas • Rider • Towne • Willett • Kindred • Levy • Farley • La Guardia • Perlman • Sirovich • Edelstein • Klein • Rayfiel • Multer • Rooney • Richmond • Molinari • Molinari • Maloney 15th district Griswold • Williams • Kirkpatrick • Porter • (Two Seat era Seat A: Bowers • Williams • Birdsall • Drake • Lyman • Campbell • Seat B: Thompson • Hammond • Williams • Monell • Hawkes) • Herkimer • Hoffman • McVean • Bovee • Edwards • Wagner • Sanford • Stetson • Russell • Lawrence • Thurman • Russell • Hughes • Dodd • McKean • Griswold • Tanner • Warren • Perry • Bagley • Mayham • Lounsbery • Cornell • Bagley • Beach • Bacon • Stivers • Bacon • Fitch • Straus • Low • Ruppert • Douglas • Olcott • Patten • Conry • Smith • Dooling • Ryan • Boylan • Kennedy • Burchill • Celler • Ray • Carey • Zeferetti • Green • Rangel 16th district Paterson • Tracy • Humphrey • Miller • Gold • Storrs • Kirkland • Cady • Markell • Arnold • Soule • Mann • Loomis • Doig • Ellis • White • Wells • Simmons • Palmer • Kellogg • Hale • Ferriss • Rogers • Smart • Adams • Quinn • Bailey • Nolan • Van Alstyne • Ketcham • Ryan • Fairchild • Ward • Underhill • Pugsley • Ruppert • Harrison • Dooling • Smith • Cockran • O'Connor • Fay • Buck • Murphy • Powell • Murphy • Holtzman • Schumer • Rangel • Serrano 17th district Phelps • Halsey • Harris • Smith • Willoughby • Hubbard • Hackley • Hubbard • Taylor • (Two Seat era Seat A: Beardsley • Miller • Foster • Brewster • Seat B: Turrill • Grant • Floyd) • Benton • Petrie • Alexander • Buell • Perkins • Spinner • Sherman • Hulburd • Wheeler • Hale • Townsend • Wood • Burleigh • Lindsley • Hopkins • Knapp • Cox • Marvin • Odell • Tompkins • Shober • Bennet • George • Carew • Pell • Mills • Cohen • Pratt • Peyser • Barton • Simpson • Baldwin • Coudert • Lindsay • Kupferman • Koch • Murphy • Molinari • Weiss • Nadler • Engel 18th district Kent • Ogden • Ford • Sterling • Martindale • Pitcher • Wardwell • Bronson • Chittenden • King • Collins • King • Rowe • Horton • Cochrane • Vibbard • Marvin • Sanford • Carroll • Wheeler • Williams • Hammond • Johnson • Burleigh • Greenman • Quackenbush • LeFever • Ketcham • Goulden • Ayres • Patten • Francis • Carew • Kennedy • Marcantonio • Donovan • Santangelo • Powell • Rangel • Koch • Green • García • Serrano • Lowey 19th district Geddes • Birdseye • Porter • Hall • Litchfield • Richards • Ross • Keese • Finch • Hogan • Page • Prentiss • Bowne • Hungerford • Mullin • Clarke • Ives • Chase • Hughston • Morse • Graham • Franchot • Miller • Hubbard • Fields • Knapp • Prindle • Hathorn • Wheeler • James • Parker • Swinburne • Kane • Tracey • Haines • Black • Cochrane • Draper • Otis • Andrus • Chandler • Rowan • Chandler • Bloom • Dickstein • Klein • Farbstein • Abzug • Rangel • Biaggi • Engel • Fish • Kelly • Hall 20th district (Two Seat era Seat A: Avery • Throop • Avery • Cruger • Baker • Rochester • Collins • Fosdick • Bunner • Hawkins • Dayan • Seat B: Comstock • Richmond • Woodcock • Eyck • Hugunin • Wright • Fisher • Sanford • Wardwell) • Johnson • Seymour • Parker • Allen • Gordon • Beardsley • Carpenter • Jenkins • Matteson • Jenkins • Matteson • Conkling • Clark • Laflin • Merriam • Wilber • Hathorn • Starin • West • Wemple • West • Sanford • Tracey • Southwick • Glynn • Southwick • Bradley • Harrison • Cantor • Siegel • La Guardia • Lanzetta • Marcantonio • Lanzetta • Marcantonio • Bloom • Roosevelt, F. Jr. • Davidson • Teller • Ryan • Abzug • Weiss • Ottinger • DioGuardi • Lowey • Gilman • Sweeney • Gillibrand
Districts 21-29 (active) 21st district (Two Seat era Seat A: Hopkins • Brooks • Ellicott • Allen • Spencer • Seat B: Howell • Porter • Clarke • Spencer • Tracy) • Clark • Whitmore • Clark • Monell • Collier • Mitchell • Mason • Clark • Cary • Goodyear • Starkweather • Walden • Snow • Bennett • Duell • Kernan • Conkling • Bailey • Roberts • Merriam • Miller • Bundy • Wilber • Jacobs • Ray • Johnson • Moffitt • Wever • Schermerhorn • Wilber • Stewart • Ketcham • McMillan • Fish, H. II • Connell • George • Hulbert • Donovan • Ansorge • Weller • Gavagan • Torrens • Javits • Zelenko • Healey • Scheuer • Badillo • García • Fish, H. IV • McNulty • Tonko 22nd district Dwinell • Miller • Stower • Beekman • Reed • (Two Seat era Seat A: Halsey • Leonard • Bruyn • Beers • Leonard • Partridge • Seat B: Hathaway • Reynolds • Gray • Dana • Riggs) • Purdy • Strong • Birdsall • Bennett • Smith • Goodwin • McCarty • Goodwin • Lee • Lansing • Littlejohn • Holmes • Churchill • Lansing • Roberts • Bagley • Miller • Skinner • Parker • Lansing • Russell • Curtis • Littauer • Draper • Bruckner • Griffin • Curley • Lynch • Powell • Fine • Healey • Gilbert • Badillo • Bingham • Gilman • Solomon • Sweeney • Hinchey 23rd district Litchfield • Badger • Earll • Jewett • (Two Seat era Seat A: Fuller • Bicknell • Earll • Birdseye • Seat B: Taylor • Rogers • Foster) • Robinson • Hough • Duer • Babcock • Lyon • Gilbert • Hoard • Clark • Davis • McCarthy • Duell • Lansing • Lord • Bacon • Prescott • Spriggs • Sherman • Bentley • Wever • Foote • Emerson • Southwick • De Forest • Goulden • Bennet • Oliver • McKiniry • Rossdale • Oliver • Buckley • Lynch • Fine • Dollinger • Gilbert • Buckley • Bingham • Peyser • Caputo • Peyser • Stratton • McNulty • Boehlert • McHugh 24th district Day • Kellogg • Garrow • Powers • Doubleday • Day • Doubleday • Noble • Morgan • Wheaton • Gott • Jones • Granger • Sedgwick • Pomeroy • Cowles • Seeley • Duell • Baker • Mason • Nutting • Pindar • Wilber • Pindar • Van Horn • Chickering • Shaw • Knapp • Smith • LeFevre • Fairchild, G. • Oglesby • Fairchild, B. • Ganly • Fairchild, B. • Ganly • Fairchild, B. • Fitzpatrick • Rabin • Isacson • Dollinger • Buckley • Fino • Biaggi • Reid • Ottinger • Solomon • McHugh • Boehlert • Arcuri 25th district Lawrence • Humphrey • Woodcock • Maxwell • Barstow • Clark • Chapin • Birdsall • Strong • Maynard • Rathbun • Conger • Howe • Morgan • Butterfield • Pomeroy • Morris • Kelsey • Lamport • MacDougall • Leavenworth • Hiscock • Belden • Sherman • Littauer • Durey • Akin • Taylor • Husted • Wainwright • Millard • Gamble • Buckley • Fino • Barry • Ottinger • Peyser • Fish IV • Boehlert • Walsh • Maffei 26th district (Two Seat era Seat A: Marvin • Halsey • Babcock • Seat B: Rose • Maynard • Rose • Dickson) • Dickson • Granger • Sibley • Granger • Greig • Granger • Dana • Ellsworth • Lawrence • Jackson • Walbridge • Oliver • Pottle • Chamberlain • Hotchkiss • Goodrich • Lamport • MacDougall • Camp • Payne • Millard • De Lano • Ray • Dwight • Flack • Malby • Merritt • Platt • Fish III • Quinn • Potts • McGrath • Gamble • Dooley • Reid • Gilman • Martin • Hinchey • Reynolds • Lee 27th district Hayden • Barnard • Childs • Whittlesey • Howell • Lee • Andrews • Mallory • Oliver • Green • De Mott • Holley • Blackmar • Sackett • Taylor • Parker • Wells • Diven • Van Valkenburg • Ward • Smith • Platt • Lapham • Wadsworth • Payne • Nutting • Payne • Belden • Poole • Belden • Driscoll • Sherman • Millington • Talcott • McClellan • Ward • Pratt • Goodwin • Rockefeller • Le Fevre • Gwinn • Barry • St. George • Dow • Robison • McHugh • Wortley • Walsh • Paxon • Reynolds • Quinn • Higgins 28th district Rochester • Woods • Porter • Magee • Wheeler • Whittlesey • Childs • Kempshall • Childs • Patterson • Holmes, E. • Schermerhorn • Hastings • Kelsey • Irvine • Van Valkenburg • Clarke • Hart • Selye • Davis • Holmes, C. • Clarke • Smith • Platt • Dwight • Millard • Arnot • Flood • Rockwell • Payne • Knapp • Mott • Ten Eyck • Sanford • Ten Eyck • Corning • Byrne • Gamble • St. George • Wharton • Resnick • Fish IV • Stratton • McHugh • Slaughter 29th district Wilson • Adams • Evans • Tracy • Lay • Patterson • Putnam • Gates • Carroll • Rose • Horsford • Boody • Carpenter • Williams • Andrews • Ely • Frank • Van Horn • Fisher • Wakeman • Clarke • Walker • Hungerford • Richardson • Arnot • Davenport • Raines • Gillet • Driscoll • Parker • Thomas • Cluett • Taylor • Bennet • St. George • Wharton • O'Brien • Button • Stratton • King • Pattison • Solomon • Horton • LaFalce • Houghton • Kuhl • Massa
Districts 30-45 and At-large (Obsolete) 30th district Tracy • Garnsey • Norton • Cooke • Fuller • Young • Peck • Young • Hubbell • Robie • Rumsey • Robie • Pringle • Sherman • Frank • Ganson • Humphrey • Bennett • Williams • Hoskins • Davy • Hart • Van Voorhis • Greenleaf • Baker • Greenleaf • Wadsworth • Dwight • Wallin • Charles • Lunn • Crowther • Kearney • Le Fevre • Wharton • O'Brien • King • McEwen • Martin • Conable • Eckert • Slaughter • Quinn 31st district Hazeltine • Marvin, R. • Clarke • Tyler • Lewis • Marvin, D. • Risley • Martin • Flagler • Burroughs • Reynolds • Van Horn • Fenton • Aernam • Sheldon • Sessions • Bass • Hoskins • Benedict • Crowley • Stevens • Sawyer • Wadsworth • Van Voorhis • Brewster • O'Grady • Perkins • Payne • Merritt • Snell • Pierce • Kilburn • Kearney • Taylor • King • Kilburn • McEwen • Mitchell • Kemp • Paxon • Houghton 32nd district Fillmore • Love • Fillmore • Moseley • Hall • Spaulding • Haven • Hatch • Spaulding • Sessions • Bass • Lockwood • Pierce • Scoville • Rogers • Farquhar • Lockwood • Mahany • Ryan • Perkins • Havens • Danforth • Mott • Sweet • Culkin • Fuller • Byrne • O'Brien • Kearney • Stratton • Pirnie • Hanley • Wortley • LaFalce 33rd district Hard • Mitchell • Babcock • Smith • Putnam • Hascall • Fenton • Edwards • Fenton • Norton • Patterson • Van Aernam • Brewer • Weber • Wiley • Bunting • Daniels • Alexander • Gillet • Fassett • Underhill • Talcott • Snyder • Davenport • Sisson • Douglas • Taylor • Kilburn • Robison • Walsh • Lee • Nowak 34th district Hunt • Burrows • Sessions • Laidlaw • Hooker • Vreeland • Wadsworth • Porter • Simmons • Fairchild • Hill • Clarke, J. • Tolley • Clarke, J. • Clarke, M. • Lord • Hall • Kilburn • Williams • Pirnie • Riehlman • Hanley • Terry • Horton • Lundine • Houghton 35th district Ryan • Driscoll • Clancy • Magee • Hancock • Fuller • Davies • Williams • Riehlman • Stratton • Hanley • Conable 36th district Alexander • Smith • Payne • Gould • Taber • Hancock • Riehlman • Taber • Horton • Smith III • LaFalce 37th district Vreeland • Underhill • Pratt • Houghton • Henry • Stalker • Cole • Hall • Cole • Robison • Ostertag • Conable • Dulski • Nowak 38th district Dunn • Jacobstein • Whitley • Duffy • Kelly • O'Brien • Taber • Keating • Weis • Goodell • Hastings • Kemp 39th district Danforth • Sanders • Wadsworth • Cole • Ostertag • Pillion • McCarthy • Kemp • Hastings • Lundine 40th district Gittins • Dempsey • Andrews • Rogers • Keating • Miller • Smith III 41st district Smith • MacGregor • Cooke • Beiter • Harter • Beiter • Mruk • Wadsworth • Ostertag • Radwan • Dulski 42nd district Driscoll • Waldow • Mead • Schwert • Butler • Andrews • Pfeiffer • Miller • Pillion 43rd district Hamilton • Reed • Elsaesser • Tauriello • Radwan • Reed • Goodell 44th district Butler • Gorski • Butler 45th district Reed At-large Tremain • Slocum • (Two Seat era Seat A: Fitzgibbons • Merritt • Seat B: Studley • O'Day • Stanley)

It's not at all obvious what the problem is here, but this is my best shot:

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Administrative backlog