Misplaced Pages

:Administrators' noticeboard - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Humanpublic (talk | contribs) at 15:24, 2 March 2013 (→Issue not solved: readability). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 15:24, 2 March 2013 by Humanpublic (talk | contribs) (→Issue not solved: readability)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles and content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators. Shortcuts

    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)

    Start a new discussion

    Template:Active editnotice

    "WP:CR" redirects here. You may be looking for Misplaced Pages:Cleanup resources, Misplaced Pages:Categorizing redirects, Misplaced Pages:Copyrights, Misplaced Pages:Competence is required, Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution, Misplaced Pages:Content removal and WP:Criteria for redaction. "WP:ANC" redirects here. You may be looking for Misplaced Pages:Assume no clue.
    Noticeboards
    Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
    General
    Articles and content
    Page handling
    User conduct
    Other
    Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards

      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.
      Shortcuts

      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.

      Technical instructions for closers

      Please append {{Doing}} to the discussion's entry you are closing so that no one duplicates your effort. When finished, replace it with {{Close}} or {{Done}} and an optional note, and consider sending a {{Ping}} to the editor who placed the request. Where a formal closure is not needed, reply with {{Not done}}. After addressing a request, please mark the {{Initiated}} template with |done=yes. ClueBot III will automatically archive requests marked with {{Already done}}, {{Close}}, {{Done}} {{Not done}}, and {{Resolved}}.

      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

      Administrative discussions

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

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

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

      Requests for comment

      Wikipedia_talk:Find_your_source#RfC:_Bypass_Paywalls_Clean

      (Initiated 100 days ago on 17 September 2024) everybody has forgotten about that discussion, but it needs closure. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 13:53, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

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

      (Initiated 79 days ago on 7 October 2024) Tough one, died down, will expire tomorrow. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

      Wikipedia_talk:Talk_page_guidelines#Request_for_comment:_Do_the_guidelines_in_WP:TPO_also_apply_to_archived_talk_pages?

      (Initiated 70 days ago on 16 October 2024) Discussion seems to have petered out a month ago. Consensus seems unclear. Gnomingstuff (talk) 02:34, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

      information Note: Needs admin closure imho, due to its importance (guideline page), length (101kb), and questions about neutrality of the Rfc question and what it meant. Mathglot (talk) 21:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
      And in true Streisand effect fashion, this discussion, quiescent for six weeks, has some more responses again. Mathglot (talk) 01:30, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
      {{doing}} voorts (talk/contributions) 23:35, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
      Oops; I put this in the wrong section. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:30, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

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

      (Initiated 59 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)

      information 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)

      Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Grey_Literature

      (Initiated 46 days ago on 10 November 2024) Discussion is slowing significantly. Likely no consensus, personally. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

      Option 2 was very clearly rejected. The closer should try to see what specific principles people in the discussion agreed upon if going with a no consensus close, because there should be a follow-up RfC after some of the details are hammered out. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 03:10, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
       Doing... —Compassionate727  13:43, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
      @Compassionate727: Still working on this? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:18, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
      Ugh… in practice, no. I'm still willing to do it, but it's in hiatus because of the three(!) pending challenges of my closures at AN, while I evaluate to what extent I need to change how I approach closures. If somebody else wants to take over this, they should feel free. —Compassionate727  22:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
      Taking a pause is fair. Just wanted to double check. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 00:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
      asking for an update if possible. I think this RFC and previous RFCBEFORE convos were several TOMATS long at this point, so I get that this might take time. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

      Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment#RFC_on_signing_RFCs

      (Initiated 43 days ago on 13 November 2024) - probably gonna stay status quo, but would like a closure to point to Bluethricecreamman (talk) 06:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

      Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Check Your Fact

      (Initiated 42 days ago on 13 November 2024) RfC has elapsed, and uninvolved closure is requested. — Red-tailed sock (Red-tailed hawk's nest) 15:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

      Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#RfC: Should a bot be created to handle AfC submissions that haven't changed since the last time they were submitted?

      (Initiated 40 days ago on 15 November 2024) This RfC expired five days ago, has an unclear consensus, I am involved, and discussion has died down. JJPMaster (she/they) 22:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

      Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#RfC Indian numbering conventions

      (Initiated 40 days ago on 16 November 2024) Very wide impact, not much heat. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

      Talk:List of fictional countries set on Earth#RfC on threshold for inclusion

      (Initiated 36 days ago on 20 November 2024) TompaDompa (talk) 17:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

      Talk:Israel#RfC

      (Initiated 33 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)

      Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (music)#RfC about the naming conventions for boy bands

      (Initiated 17 days ago on 8 December 2024) No further participation in the last 7 days. Consensus is clear but I am the opener of the RfC and am not comfortable closing something I am so closely involved in, so would like somebody uninvolved to close it if they believe it to be appropriate.RachelTensions (talk) 16:00, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

      I'm not comfortable closing a discussion on a guideline change this early. In any case, if the discussion continues as it has been, a formal closure won't be necessary. —Compassionate727  13:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

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

      Deletion discussions

      XFD backlog
      V Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
      CfD 0 0 0 15 15
      TfD 0 0 0 8 8
      MfD 0 0 2 2 4
      FfD 0 0 1 6 7
      RfD 0 0 9 57 66
      AfD 0 0 0 0 0

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

      Talk:Donald Trump#Proposal: Age and health concerns regarding Trump

      (Initiated 71 days ago on 16 October 2024) Experienced closer requested. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:57, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

      Talk:Tesla Cybercab#Proposed merge of Tesla Network into Tesla Cybercab

      (Initiated 69 days ago on 18 October 2024) This needs formal closure by someone uninvolved. N2e (talk) 03:06, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

      I think it would be better to leave that discussion be. There is no consensus one way or the other. I could close it as "no consensus," but I think it would be better to just leave it so that if there's ever anyone else who has a thought on the matter, they can comment in that discussion instead of needing to open a new one. —Compassionate727  14:15, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

      Talk:Winter fuel payment abolition backlash#Merge proposal

      (Initiated 58 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:Stadion Miejski (Białystok)#Requested move 5 November 2024

      (Initiated 50 days ago on 5 November 2024) RM that has been open for over a month. Natg 19 (talk) 02:13, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

      Talk:Shiv Sena#Merge proposal

      (Initiated 29 days ago on 27 November 2024) Discussion seems to have stopped. As the proposal is not uncontroversial, and I, as the initiator, am involved, I am requesting an uninvolved editor to close the discussion. Arnav Bhate (talk • contribs) 11:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

      Talk:Williamsburg Bray School#Splitting proposal

      (Initiated 29 days ago on 27 November 2024) Only two editors—the nominator and myself—have participated. That was two weeks ago. Just needs an uninvolved third party for closure. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:37, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

       Doing... BusterD (talk) 20:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

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

      Block of IP range

      Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) blocked the IP range 101.0.71.0/24 because an IP editor active from that range had an IP-hopping connection. The log claims this was for "sock abuse", but there is no indication that the IP was a sock of anyone or that there was any misrepresentation on the IP's part. Instead the WP:SOCK argument appears to be based on the nature of the IP's connection. Future left several statements demanding the IP create an account or else be blocked: . Future ultimately performed an anon-only block on the IP range when this didn't happen, initially for three months with account creation blocked. For no apparent reason, Future modified the block a half-hour later to make it a hard range block for six months. The IP was editing from a VPN server and this is what caused the IP-hopping. Given the IP's statements about editing from work it seems this was not done with any deliberate intent to evade, but rather because the company for which the editor works uses a VPN connection as do many other companies. Blocking account creation when the whole concern was about the IP-hopping range seems punitive in the extreme. The IP editor did use a proxy server after the block to inform me of the issue, but I don't think that should be held against them given the excessively punitive nature of Future's block. I ask that the range block be amended to anon-only with account creation allowed.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 19:10, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

      The socking argument was obviously related to this ANI discussion about possible socks of Echigo mole where 101.0.71.9 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) was attacking Mathsci and Dougweller. So, connections aside, I think there's a good likelihood that this IP is in fact related to Echigo mole. In this light I'm not sure that account creation from this very range would benefit the project, so a hard range block may be justified. De728631 (talk) 19:36, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
      I don't think that the IP hopper's account is operated by Echigo mole, since he edited a year ago from a regular IP range in Australia. On the other hand the IP hopper did restore a trolling edit of Echigo mole and acted on it as if it had been made by a good faith user, despite having been told otherwise by two editors. After FPaS, blocked the range 101.0.71.0/24, the IP hopper used an open proxy in Brazil which was reported by me at WP:OP and blocked for 6 months by Materialscientist. Mathsci (talk) 19:52, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
      Multiple users have suggested that it would be helpful if the IP hopper registered an account. At the same time last year, they were editing in a different Australian IP range. Again suggestions to register an account were fobbed off. The excuse finally offered was the inability to think up a "decent name". Mathsci (talk) 01:39, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

      Adopting a bureaucratic procedure of taking a week to agonize over every "new" user editing from an IP-hopping proxy would not be helpful when facing long-term and very determined POV pushing. It is very hard for people unfamiliar with the WP:ARBR&I debacle to follow a case like this. Third parties should bear in mind these factors: a very dedicated group of determined people has been pushing a certain line about race and intelligence for years (and some are banned); in the past, Mathsci was the main obstacle preventing Misplaced Pages from being used to promote their view; several of the banned users have created socks to push their view or to provoke Mathsci in the hope of having him sanctioned; independently of the R&I case, there is a long term abuser (Echigo mole) with a grudge against Mathsci who frequently posts provocative messages hoping to recruit editors for their cause. The 101 IP is not Echigo mole. 101 is someone supporting the R&I line of the banned users, and who has been carefully following good practices to do what they can to support their view. However, they came unstuck when discussing Mathsci on ANI (archive). Taking the trouble to follow the interactions shows that 101 revealed their agenda by restoring and spreading Echigo mole's trolling (EM used 111.161.30.218), then focusing on Mathsci at ANI. If 101 were a good-faith editor, they would have responded to the ANI report by explaining why they restored 111.161.30.218's message, and taking advice on the matter. Instead, they pushed their line. Good block. Johnuniq (talk) 21:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

      The IP was not a proxy server as you are implying, but an IP range belong to a VPN server that is apparently operated by the editor's place of employment. In addition, the IP indicated that he or she was not a new user at all, but has been editing for at least a year, noting this IP. As I noted above, Future's concerns focused only on the IP-hopping and he called for the IP editor to register an account to resolve those concerns. An anon-only block that allowed account creation would allow for that concern to be addressed.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 00:42, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
      That interpretation is very unlikely to be correct. Yet another IP (92.4.162.209) posted some info at Talk:R&I. The Internet has an industry that provides proxy servers that people can use to hide their IP and their geographic location. Services provided include the ability to change IP whenever wanted (with the ability to appear to be from one country in one post, and from an entirely different country in another edit made a minute later). If wanted ask at my talk for an explanation of what 92 said, but I checked their evidence and it is correct, namely that PureVPN is a business providing proxy services (under $10/month), and the PureVPN Australian server is at 101.0.71.2, and that makes it very likely that all the 101.0.71.* IPs are used by PureVPN (the coincidence of that fact combined with an IP-hopping editor in an area known to be inhabitated by determined socks is striking). The 101 user may claim that their 101.0.71.* IPs are from a VPN server operated by their employer, but that claim is very likely to be false (unless they work for PureVPN). Apart from the PureVPN coincidence, legitimate VPN servers do not change IP (and they certainly do not do so frequently). It is obvious that the 101 user is not new, and it is obvious they want to settle grudges concerning the editor I named, and it is obvious that they were settling in for a protracted battle with demands that there be proof that the EM trolling was made by a banned user (the EM comments came from an IP with a total of two edits, both being "helpful" comments at User talk:BlackHades, intended to continue their fight). Johnuniq (talk) 01:42, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
      Actually, now that you mention it, I do wonder if we should even operate under the presumption that the UK IP was right about there being a VPN involved. Were it not for that comment, along with rampant sock paranoia, none of us would be talking about VPN and it is quite possible that it is just a coincidence. The 110.32 range that was active until at least July of last year geolocates to the same metropolitan area and the editorial activity does seem similar to the 101.0.71 range, with the same IP-hopping (see the revision history of the Guns, Germs, and Steel article around February 2012). I don't think there is any basis for suspecting that the IP editor is lying about this being their prior IP range and it seems to support this being the same editor. The IP-hopping is unusual, but looking at the GGaS revision history, in one instance only an hour elapse before IPs changed. As these all geolocate to the same area it seems unusual to see anything nefarious in that. It actually does seem suggestive of some connection that constantly changes the IP address.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 05:24, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
      In an ideal world perhaps we would have time to accommodate people with a plethora of problems: IP 101 does not want to create an account; their IP changes frequently; they happen to be using IPs that are known to be in a range also used by PureVPN; PureVPN is in the business of providing cheap proxy services intended so users can avoid scrutiny; the 101 user happens to favor views shared by several banned users; they are perfectly civil but cannot pass up an opportunity to settle a few scores with a well known editor who happens to be the bete noire of the banned users; they demand proof to justify the removal of a troll post by a banned user using a throwaway IP. What benefit would arise from spending a couple more days agonizing over whether those factors are sufficient to justify a block? Johnuniq (talk) 10:55, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
      Lots of people "happen to favor views shared by several banned users", but that in itself means nothing. The prior activity from 110.32 range strongly suggests the geolocation is legitimate as PureVPN didn't have a server for nearly the entire time that range was active. None of the banned users edit from Australia as far as I know.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 16:00, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
      I have to agree with User:The Devil's Advocate this block, and the discussions related to it don't seem to add up. I'm curious as to what ultimately was the justification for this 6 month block. --Kyohyi (talk) 21:09, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
      • Whoever the IP hopper is, the open proxy 201.76.185.214 in Brazil that they used has now been used for a second time to post an unblock request. That request, however, is in the style of Mikemikev's edit summaries here (now reverted with edit summaries rev-delled) and is unlikely to have any success. Mathsci (talk) 12:21, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
      Thanks. It's not the first time he's muddied the waters like that. Mathsci (talk) 07:26, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

      Here is a list of the 110.32 IPs and 101.0.71 IPs (the latter being the IPs subject to the range block) generally sorted by time of use in chronological order:

      Looking at them all seems to make it more likely that this IP was not using some service to evade scrutiny, but just that the editor's connection constantly changes IP addresses. The IP editor has been consistently straightforward about their connection with the other IPs so it makes it even less likely. As far as I know, none of the persistent sockmasters in the topic area edit from Australia so that does not seem to be a likely issue either.

      I see no reason to presume that a hard block of the 101.0.71 IP range was in any way necessary or justifiable. Should the issue only be, as Future suggested in his statement to the IP, that the IP-hopping made it preferable for the editor to have a registered account, then the six-month hard block is not an appropriate action. Allowing account creation seems more appropriate.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 08:52, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

      • Chronological information on the IP hopper's cumulative edits is easily available using toolserver because of the narrowness of the IP range used. The link has been displayed multiple times here and on WP:ANI. Here it is again: As Future Perfect at Sunrise has written on his user talk page, after one week this meritless request has found no traction with any administrators. The reasons for unblocking appear to be more related to the continuation of various disputes in project space. Mathsci (talk) 10:43, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
      • What is known is that PureVPN provides a cheap service intended to assist its users avoid scrutiny, and that PureVPN uses at least one IP in the range listed above. There is no reason to think that anyone using PureVPN IPs has ever seen Australia—the whole point of a service like that is to hide the user's location. I have never heard of someone having an Internet connection with an IP that changes in a matter of hours (once or twice, yes; frequently, no). Johnuniq (talk) 10:48, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
      There is no proof the user is using PureVPN. The IP range of 101.0.71.* is owned by Digital Pacific. It is true that PureVPN has a server on this range but that doesn't necessarily confirm that this user is using PureVPN. Many companies have a server with Digital Pacific and would hence have an IP in that range not just PureVPN. Including the companies listed here. There is no conclusive evidence this user is using PureVPN and no evidence that this user was trying to evade scrutiny. This IP range should be unblocked and the user should be allowed the opportunity to open an account. BlackHades (talk) 03:03, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
      That's not correct. Digital Pacific state that their dedicated servers come with a minimum of 5 usable IP addresses. The VPN server is located at 101.0.71.2, which means that 101.0.71.0/29 is the minimum range allocated to PureVPN. 101.0.71.6 has been used by the editor in question, so they are definitely using PureVPN. — 92.2.72.72 (talk) 05:15, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

      There probably is not conclusive evidence one way or the other regarding any blocked user (their little brother might have done it). A key feature of the IP user being discussed is that their IP changed much more frequently than normal experience indicates is reasonable. That was discussed with them, and they were told several times about the desirability of creating an account so there was no question of whether the IP edits were by one person or several. The IP offered no explanation about their IP (no unusual situation mentioned). The IP declined to create an account. As soon as they were blocked, the IP complained that they could not create an account. It just does not add up to a reasonable situation. In an area known to have been inhabitated by banned POV pushers for years, the community does not need to prove conclusively that an IP-hopping user really is a problem. That particularly applies when the IP was pointedly restoring comments by a banned user, and was getting stuck into an editor who has done little recently in the area, but who is known to be a target of the banned R&I users. The IP brought their problems on themselves, and the PureVPN "coincidence" (with a very plausible technical explanation from 92.2.72.72 above—thanks) is too much to overlook. Johnuniq (talk) 05:23, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

      (edit conflict) The first identified edits of the IP hopper, apart from edit-warring to blank a large section of the lede of R&I three times, stated their POV clearly. It is inconsistent with the principles laid down in WP:ARBR&I. With a registered account, they would almost certainly have been topic banned (similarly to the Australian IP mentioned above, indefinitely blocked by Timotheus Canens for WP:TE). Having a hopping IP allowed them to evade scrutiny. In this thread two editors, who edited in concert with the IP hopper, are griping about the block of the narrow IP range. One of them, BlackHades, is hot off a one week arbitration enforcement block for battlefield conduct, which included frivolously reporting Dougweller as a sockpuppet of KillerChihuahua. Why does he think his complaints about the treatment of a user who harassed Dougweller will carry any weight here? Mathsci (talk) 06:26, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
      Stick to the issue. WP:No personal attacks. PureVPN didn't even have a server in Australia until June 2012. This user's history goes back to 2011. There's no indication that the user is trying to evade scrutiny. His IP history consistently locates back to the same location geographically well before PureVPN even ever had a server in Australia. BlackHades (talk) 09:53, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
      There is no valid "issue" in this thread. The IP hopper's edits were disruptive: restoring Echigo mole's trolling edit, knowing at the time that it had been made by a banned user; acting on it as if made by a user in good standing; harassing Dougweller on his talk page; and making personal attacks at ANI. The very narrow IP range, whether it was a VPN or not, has been used exclusively by this user. So the block has no collateral damage and prevents any further disruptive edits. Mathsci (talk) 11:01, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
      That UK IP is far more suspicious to me than the 101 IP. It appears to be the same individual that first made this allegation, though the IP has changed in the few days since it was last active. For those in the know, this edit would seem indicative of a certain editor.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 05:53, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
      Yes, I am that same IP editor. Sorry for not making that clear. However, I'm not whoever you seem to think I am. I edit as an IP, and only very sparingly at that. — 92.2.72.72 (talk) 06:19, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
      The IP appears to be editing in good faith and does not appear to be a sockpuppet of a banned user such as Echigo mole, Mikemikev or JarlaxleArtemis. Unless there is clear evidence to the contrary (as with 111.161.30.218, now blocked for a year), suspicions about sockpuppetry should be reserved for WP:SPI. Mathsci (talk) 06:41, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
      The editor using this IP range based in Hammersmith appears to have expertise in economics (which involves applicable mathematics, not pure mathematics). There are no similarities with Echigo mole edits at all. Mathsci (talk) 17:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
      In my opinion, IP ranges should never be rangeblocked long-term without the "anon-only" parameter. Blocking an IP range long term affects thousands of users on a given network. The best thing to do would be to change the block and place a {{anonblock}} in the summary so that established users can still edit from that range. –BuickCenturyDriver 10:53, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
      The range is very narrow with only 255 entries. It has only ever been used by one person. Mathsci (talk) 11:30, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
      The range includes many companies that has servers with Digital Pacific. Future Perfect's reason for blocking the user was because he wanted the user to open an account. But while at the same time he was advising the user to open an account, he blocked the user's IP range. It doesn't make sense. How can he open an account if his IP range is blocked? The block should be removed so that he may open an account as Future Perfect has advised him to do. The user has never shown that he's trying to hide anything and there's no established link between him and any banned users. As far as PureVPN, the user's history goes back long before PureVPN even ever had a server in Australia. All his IP addresses consistently comes up in the same location geographically. There's no reason to believe this isn't his real geographical location. BlackHades (talk) 18:11, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

      That analysis is incorrect. Running nmap on 101.0.71.2 shows that port 443 is open for the service https. Placing https://101.0.71.2 in a browser window brings up a page with "You attempted to reach 101.0.71.2, but instead you actually reached a server identifying itself as *.pointtoserver.com". Searching for "pointtoserver.com" brings up a tutorial on purevpn. This user has harassed Dougweller, taken potshots at me, restored the post of a banned user, used two illegal open proxies, etc. They are a disruption-only account and no administrator has agreed to unblock this tiny range of 256 IPs.

      Since 10 days have elapsed since this request was made with no response from any administrators, please could this request now be archived by an uninvolved administrator? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 03:10, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

      101.0.71.2 isn't even one of the IP addresses of this user so all that is irrelevant. 101.0.71.* is a lot of different companies that all have a server with Digital Pacific not just PureVPN. His history goes back long before the existence of PureVPN in Australia. PureVPN only got a server in Australia in June 2012. Link here. And as far as open proxies, he used an open proxy one time asking how he's suppose to meet Future Perfect's request to create an account if his IP range is blocked on someone's talk page. He made zero edits in articles or on article talk page. And one time below only to defend against your false accusation that he is PsychKitten. BlackHades (talk) 04:24, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
      It is the entry point to the VPN. If you need further explanation, please ask Materialscientist (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). When blocked for a week a few days ago, FPaS wrote in your block notice, "You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for editing with a disruptive battleground attitude, as evidenced especially in your frivolous WP:SPI report." The user editing from the IP range was editing in a similar way. You are now spending a lot of effort lobbying on his behalf. Given your activity immediately prior to the block, your request would seem to come from a wish to have him aid you in pursuing future disputes or requests like the Dougweller/KillerChihuahua SPI. That presumably is why no administrators are taking your request seriously. Mathsci (talk) 04:46, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
      Stop with the blind speculation. You accused the IP user of being PsychKitten. Then made a suggestion below that I may have an anonymous past in R&I. You were wrong on both counts. Not everything you think is true is actually true. BlackHades (talk) 06:57, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
      I wonder if you could tone things down a notch? The SPI clerk Spitfire agreed with me that the PsychKitten case was ambiguous and in the end I was right, as the checkuser Elockid confirmed. That was due to new edits by an IP and then PsychKitten. The IP hopper edited disruptively and has since edited using two open proxies. An anonymous account using open proxies is potentially capable of anything. I cannot see anything coming out of this thread and hope that it will be closed soon. Edits constantly repeating the same things while omitting to mention the disruption would eventually end up being labelled WP:TE. Mathsci (talk) 12:03, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

      New account User:PsychKitten editing using open proxy

      IP blocked by Materialscientist and PsychKitten by Elockid. Mathsci (talk) 15:21, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

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

      This account was created on Feb 22 and today they have been using an open proxy 202.105.113.132:8080 from China. The targeted articles are the same as those frequented by Mikemikev, but the style and POV are more like those of the IP hopper. Initially I posted a report at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Mikemikev before seeing something funny about this. I removed the report, but the SPI clerk Spitfire confirmed that the IP used was an open proxy from China on 8080. As there is no reason for Mikemikev to use an IP outside Korea, this is more likely to be the IP hopper, bypassing the block of the IP range. Mathsci (talk) 14:58, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

      Subsequent ongoing edits on Talk:Race and intelligence confirm this identification. The IP has also been reported at WP:OP. Mathsci (talk) 15:29, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

      This is the "IP hopper", commenting from Melbourne via a proxy. PsychKitten is not me. I don't know if it is Mikemikev or Echigo mole, but it isn't me. I haven't made an account after Future Perfect disabled registration from my IPs, and I intend to wait for the outcome of this thread before I do. 54.243.69.129 (talk) 18:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

      Mathsci, on what evidence specifically is there that you think PsychKitten is related to IP 101.0.71.*? All you said is that you think "style and POV" is similar but you haven't stated specifically why you think this. BlackHades (talk) 00:53, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
      It is clearly not a new user per  Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me. No new user arrives at wikipedia and heads to Talk:Race and intelligence, Talk:Race and genetics and Talk:Race (human classification) with a complete knowledge of the back history. On the other hand this could still be Mikemikev because of the first edit to Franz Boas. That edit might have been made using a different IP. At WP:OP the IP has been confirmed as an open proxy and has been hard blocked for two years by Materialscientist. Mathsci (talk) 09:46, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
      As you said, this might be Mikemikev or someone else even. But I don't see any evidence PsychKitten is the IP user or "IP hopper" in question. BlackHades (talk) 16:56, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
      Yes, determining this kind of thing can be tricky. In your case for example you once edited logged off from an ISP in Las Vegas. Then in December 2010, during a break in editing on your registered account, an anonymous user with the same ISP in Las Vegas edit warred on Talk:Race and intelligence, resulting in a 31 hour block. It went unnoticed at the time. Mathsci (talk) 17:53, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
      I have no clue who that anonymous user was but I can say with absolute 100% certainly that the anonymous user was not me. His writing style is nothing like mine. I've never displayed such fixation with Han Chinese material the way he does. I don't think I've even ever uttered such a phrase in any of my edits whether in article or in talk. It's quite clear from this person's edit history such as Republic of China Armed Forces, Soong May-ling, and mentioning Han Chinese repeatedly in Race and Inteliigence that this person is of Chinese descent. I am not. I would also never link a youtube video as a source. I had no reason to edit anonymously as my account was in perfectly good standing. Note that Cox Communications essentially has a monopoly of internet access in Southern Nevada. So anyone from there would have an IP with Cox Communications. This would be millions of people. BlackHades (talk) 19:23, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
      For the record, 54.243.69.129 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is also an open HTTP proxy, this time on port 8000. Someone may want to block that? I've also sent an email to ec2-abuse@amazon.com about that one, although whether they'll actually do anything about closing the proxy is another matter... Spitfire 11:06, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
      Actually, looks like that one's down now. Perhaps Amazon shut that hole. Spitfire 11:12, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
      The IP 54.243.69.129 was clearly used as a one time only thing by 101.0.71.* or "IP hopper" to defend against the assertion that Mathsci made. There's no indication he plans to continue using the open proxy. BlackHades (talk) 17:01, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
      Indeed, it's just common practice to block any open proxies we find, per policy. Additionally I thought it was polite to let Amazon know that one of their rented servers had an open proxy on it - generally VPS providers/webhosts prefer not to have these running. Spitfire 18:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
      Psychkitten is definitely not a new user. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:02, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
      Quite right :-) The timing of your comment is eerie: PsychKitten has just been blocked by CU Elockid along with an obvious Mikemikev ipsock 112.160.35.80. See Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Mikemikev. Mathsci (talk) 15:09, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
      The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

      Improper merge

      In an ongoing discussion on whether Heart and Soul (The Cleftones) should be merged into Heart and Soul (1938 song), User:Kww, an admin who expressed an opinion in that merge discussion, subsequently merged the source article into the target article after another editor suggested that "perhaps it's time to merge per kww and move on," even though the discussion was not closed and Kww had a demonstrated potential conflict of interest/lack of impartiality for the merge action prior to the merge edits. Was this a proper admin action? Also, please undo the merge edits. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:57, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

      This does not look like an admin action to me. Nymf talk to me 14:21, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
      No admin tools were used. Your argument with me is with me as an editor, not as an admin.—Kww(talk) 14:46, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
      My thinking in posting here was that administrators are expected to follow Misplaced Pages policies and have actions that are compatible with the status of administrator. No admin tools were used, so apparently this was not an admin action. In any event, I would appreciate someone returning the two article to their unmerged state since the merge discussion is ongoing. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 17:15, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
      • The two article continued to be reverted from their unmerged state. There have only been three editors commenting in that merge discussion and now the merge notices are gone. If this is the wrong board to obtain assistance in this, please let me know where I can go to get assistance in allowing the merge discussion to take place without disruption. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 01:34, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
      • (vaguely involved editor) I feel this issue is really about Uzma Gamal not getting enough credit for the substantial Heart and Soul (The Cleftones) article content he created, and I think he is quite justified in feeling a bit miffed. He added a huge chunk of content here only to see it merged into another article by another editor, and now his contribution is not found in the edit history of the article which received the merged content. I think Uzma deserves a barnstar for his work. --Surturz (talk) 16:42, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

      Topic (article) ban

      Frank L. VanderSloot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

      GeorgeLouis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

      Rhode Island Red (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

      I propose a topic ban on Frank L. VanderSloot‎ for User:GeorgeLouis and User:Rhode Island Red based on the history above, which may not be complete. I consider myself WP:INVOLVED because of my 5 edits to the article and a couple of edits to the talk page last year.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:59, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

      Proposing to ban me based on a few old retributive edit warring reports (baseless reports filed by George Louis that led to nothing) and a failed witch-hunt RfC (filed by George Louis that led to nothing) in the absence of a compelling reason or a recent incident? I have to question your motives for filing this. I suspect a pre-emptive measure aimed at derailing my request to go to ArbCom to resolve the POV pushing by editors who appear to have a vested interest in the subject matter. Looks like you're picking up the torch and launching yet another ill-conceived witch-hunt (of course I am in no way defending George Louis and won't obstruct your efforts to ban him). Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:59, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
      Thus far, you're fortunate in that my proposal has apparently gained no traction, although your comments, in my view, only hurt you rather than help you. As for my motives (the usual refuge of editors who have no defense), I went out to dinner last night and I told my dinner companion about how much work it was to propose this ban (it took me a long time to create the list at the top). Understandably, they asked me, "Who is Frank VanderSloot?" After a fairly long pause, I responded, "I don't remember." As for ArbCom, I can't fathom what you expect to accomplish there, but it's hard to derail something of which I was wholly ignorant. Happy editing.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:46, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
      What is unfortunate is that I have had to waste even a minute of my time responding to this (and reading about your dinner date last night). My previous comments highlighted the lack of substance to your inane proposal, which was missing one key element -- a reason. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:55, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
      Do you want to hear what we had for dinner? I thought the reasons was fairly obvious. The two of you are a disruption to the article and a continous drain on Misplaced Pages resources. I for one am sick of seeing this article and your (collectively) edits at all these different noticeboards. It's like deja vu times I don't know how many. You have the chutzpah to say that these events aren't "recent"?
      1. the article was locked as recently as February 13.
      2. your last edit to the article was a revert of GeorgeLouis on February 23 (preceded by edit-warring between the two of you).
      3. the last edit-warring report was on January 31 brought by you against GeorgeLouis (with this lovely opening salvo: "We’ve been having a chronic problem with GeorgeLouis over at the Frank Vandersloot page. Over the last couple of days (and over the past 8 months or so), the editor has made repeated attempts to blank reliably-sourced content from the article against consensus.").
      4. the last ANI discussion was in the middle of February.
      5. the last BLPN discussion was on January 21.
      --Bbb23 (talk) 16:17, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
      None of the evidence you presented falls on my shoulders nor does it remotely justify calling for a page ban against me. So what if I made an edit on Feb 13. It was a legitimate edit. The page wasn't locked because of me. The ANI was to resolve an editing dispute -- had nothing to do with my conduct. Yes, I filed an edit warring report against George and it was deemed that he was edit warring; how can you possibly try to twist that as evidence of misconduct on my part? That's ridiculous. Your blood lust is baseless. No admin would be foolish enough to not see through your paper thin premise. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:02, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

      Support for RIR, waiting for comments from George before !voting on him. I think RIR's comments here are representative of his inability to recognize the results of his actions. Arkon (talk) 17:01, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

      So what you're saying is that because I challenged the charge and the evidence presented, that's evidence that the charge is legitimate? What kind of ridiculous circular logic is that? 17:15, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

      Support: I have felt on many occasions that this discussion is basically endless, and that any solution cannot be achieve without some kind of legitimate fork in the road we are all forced to follow. Ban everybody involved on all sides unless we can collaborate. I was deeply disappointed by the recent reversal of administrative decisiveness on this page purely because two editors on the losing side decided to make a fuss. This whole situation has made me lose faith in Misplaced Pages's ability to protect living people and deflect political bias. Makes me want to stick to artist only, and science pages and forget the entire side of Misplaced Pages dealing with businesses and businessmen. Jeremy112233 (talk) 06:22, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

      Jeeremy, you have been very much involved at the core of several of the editing disputes. This might seem like convenient opportunity to take out the opposition with an unjustified page ban, but it won't work. It's shameful that you would even try such an underhanded tactic. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:19, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
      I'm simply responding to the recommendation of another individual. If they felt I was a part of the problem too, I would go along with any request to pause, rewind, or move forward in a different method myself. I know that you have good intentions on Misplaced Pages and I do not doubt that at all, I in fact very much admire the pages you've chosen to take on, but I also think the intention of this proposal is constructive as well. I have tried to be constructive in all items I have posted regarding these situations. But how many hours of other people's time is this project going to continue to take? I think we can trust that the Misplaced Pages community at large is capable of handling this page effectively if we all left it alone.Jeremy112233 (talk) 17:34, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

      Support for RIR. Opinion reserved on GeorgeLouis pending a response. I followed the last several ANI's revolving around article and decided against commenting. This is a ultimately necessary step to stop the endless unconstructive bickering at that article. Blackmane (talk) 15:17, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

      That's silly. Bickering is not a basis for calling for a page ban. Nor is the so called "bickering" confined to me and George; you seem to be purposely ignoring the fact that multiple parties have been involved, and yet you are trying to make it seem as though it's all somehow my fault that multiple parties are in disagreement. I've been saying for quite some time that the article and the actions of various POV pushers should go before ArbCom for resolution. My impression is that there are some ardent advocates of Vandersloot and Melaleuca who don't want that to happen, for fear of that the decision would not rule in their favor. This is a silly witch-hunt; nothing more. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:13, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

      Comment.You got the wrong guy, officer, but thanks for posting this link to my edits. It shows clearly that I've made beaucoup recent edits on such controversial subjects as "Copy edit," "More copy edit," "Comma to set off appositive," "Impersonal, not personal pronoun," "Spell out approximate number," "Correct small number per MOS. Hyphens in 9-1/2 and in second-largest. Comma in compound sentence" and "Changing % to percent for concistency." Then there was the landmark "Correct capitalization," which amended the name of Vandersloot to the correct form VanderSloot (thirteen times!), which had been in the article — I don't know — maybe forever? We also have several instances of "Adding In Use Tag" and "Removing In Use Tag," not to mention "Link is now dead," "Adding a link that does not require payment," "Reverting self. Have to do more checking" and "Explaining what the Inc. 500 list is." Thanks again: It was fun going over my past edits in this one article. GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:25, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

      Oppose RIR, leaning Support for GL; @GL, a couple of your "copyedits" were substantive, and a number of your substantive edits are wrong. A majority of your edits this year were removing material added by RIR or adding material removed by RIR, whether or not you were specifically reverting his edits. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:05, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
      Well, yeah, of course. I haven't recently looked at the stats, but with the number of edits RIR has made to that article, it would be difficult to make any edit that didn't effect his. Arkon (talk) 23:53, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
      What you fail to acknowledge (and I can't help but wonder why) is that as a result of my numerous edits, a complete article was written (i.e., you can't make an omelet without cracking some eggs). By comparison, George's overall contributions to the article have been negligible. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:35, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
      Arthur's statement is quite factual from what I can tell, but was lacking context. I attempted to provide that. I honestly have no problem with an editor contributing 99% of an article. The problem is your inability to recognize when you mess up, and you go on the attack instead. Not sure I've seen you own up to one single thing, and there have been numerous editors point these things out. That's the problem as I see it. Without acknowledgement of these legitimate complaints, why would anyone think you won't continue on the same path? Arkon (talk) 00:48, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
      My issue is that his claim is just not true :) RIR reverted almost everybody's edits unless they were fully in line with his/her perspective on how things should be written, leaving an article almost wholly based on his/her opinions, though even then the bulk of the information and sources were coming from others. Most other editors, including George, have not been willing to fight with RIR on how the text is written because the minor details of the writing is not important enough to break from Misplaced Pages's norms of civility and collaboration. Other editors gave in before RIR did, that's all. There was also a lot of other material RIR refused to allow, even if it were sourced, which RIR generally did so with incivility. Lastly, RIR tends to revert the items of others and claim the talk page should be used, but rarely proposes language him/herself on the talk page before adding it and then fights for it to remain. This allowed RIR to claim WP:OWN of the article, but does not mean everybody else's contributions were "negligible" (a rather uncivil term). Jeremy112233 (talk) 00:54, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
      Jeremy, when you make such gobsmackingly indefensible accusations like "leaving an article almost wholly based on his/her opinions", you reveal the futility of this ridiculous exercise. It's threads like these that are the true waste of resources. Stop the witch-hunt nonsense already. Rhode Island Red (talk) 04:31, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
      Civility RIR, civility. I am simply responding to your claim that George doesn't matter on this article, which he clearly does. Stating that you created the whole article is also incorrect, and I've demonstrated how it could be misconceived that your contributions were greater than they really have been.Jeremy112233 (talk) 17:19, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
      The words "ridiculous", "nonsense", and "witch-hunt" fall well within the boundaries of civility. I'm merely calling a spade a spade -- i.e., it's extremely disingenuous to point to my edit count as though it's evidence of malfeasance rather than productivity. Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:05, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
      Those aren't the words I'm talking about, obviously. And no one is calling your "edit count ... malfeasance". I'm talking specifically about you discounting the efforts of others, and blowing your own efforts out of proportion. That aside, I'm surprised that you insist that there is no hostility whatsoever to your words, perhaps you should recheck your phrasing before posting. Jeremy112233 (talk) 02:00, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

      I don't want to make light of this WP:ANI because I know how annoying it can be when confronted by what seems to be endless dispute in WP articles. Nevertheless, I'd like to point out that I have been active in developing new Talk Page sections when requested, by RIR or by other editors, all with an eye to settling disagreements. Granted, because these are Talk Page changes, they may not have been included in the very comprehensive list of diffs submitted above by User:Bbb23.

      • Adding a marketing subsection entitled "Inverted pyramid vs. chronological

      http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3AFrank_L._VanderSloot&diff=525083077&oldid=525079257

      • Adding a new section on the Direct Selling Association

      http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3AFrank_L._VanderSloot&diff=524652084&oldid=524647718

      • Making subheaders for ease of editing and of comprehension. Hiding some off-topic comments.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3AFrank_L._VanderSloot&diff=537055852&oldid=537046161

      • Idaho ballot initiatives

      http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3AFrank_L._VanderSloot&diff=537055852&oldid=537046161

      • New subheaders in Talk section, "Consensus" for ease of comprehension

      http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3AFrank_L._VanderSloot&diff=537308982&oldid=537307545

      • Making additional subheaders so each editor would have his or her own subsection instead of having to share:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3AFrank_L._VanderSloot&diff=536849148&oldid=536836231

      GeorgeLouis (talk)

      To get this discussion off dead center, I don't mind taking a four-week break from editing (I did this for some two weeks last December), so that others could improve the article. but I think the project would benefit from whatever I post on the Talk Page, even if it's just advice about correcting a spelling error.GeorgeLouis (talk)
      • Oppose topic-banning either RIR or GL. Having watched the VanderSloot shenanigans for some time now, it seems to me that RIR is the most valuable contributor in terms of trying to improve the encyclopedic value of the article, and GL is prominent among users whose resistance to policy-compliant, reliably sourced content makes it hard not to wonder about agendas and motivations. I note, and agree with, Arthur Rubin's comments on GL's edits. Yet I don't think topic-banning GL would be helpful without also including the others who together form, whether by accident or design, a united front against content they apparently don't like. Might there be a mature, neutral, policy-savvy admin who has the balls to mediate the content disputes on the talk page? Writegeist (talk) 18:03, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
      Writegeist has an excellent point! If we can get that kind of administrative support on the page ... can we? Jeremy112233 (talk) 02:29, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
      • Comment -- I get the sense that a topic ban per se isn't going to get sufficient support here to be adopted. To plant a seed for future consideration: what might help avoid disruption here is to impose a restriction on use of noticeboards w/rt this article: a prohibition on initiating a discussion at any noticeboard, and a prohibition on contributing more than twice (with each contribution <75 words) at any single discussion initiated by anyone else. Tweak the details, whatever, but the point is to restrict the drama to the article talk page and spare the larger number of people who participate at the noticeboards. Again, for future consideration perhaps -- and since I've been involved at the article myself, feel free to discount the entire suggestion on that basis alone if you like. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:29, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
      • I never discount anything you say. Although an interesting suggestion, I fear it would be almost impossible to implement. It would be almost like saying anyone can do whatever they please on the article, and no one can seek sanctions or even input about editors' actions. I suppose you could craft something that might be doable, but it would no doubt have to be an extended use of wikilegalese.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:53, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
      • Oh, I meant it to apply only to the two editors in question here. The point is, there's enough attention on the page that if a genuine problem arises with one or the other someone is likely to raise it at a noticeboard -- but we wouldn't have to worry about frivolous or retaliatory reports. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
      • Support ban on all "health products" related pages Per the first RfC/U on RIR, that appears to be where the primary problem is. GL is not involved in that larger area, but RIR appears to be a strong SPA in that area. Collect (talk) 13:47, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
      Contributors to discussions of this sort really ought to indicate whether they have been involved at the article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:50, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
      My last edit was removal of a blatant copyvio -- which RIR then reverted. . AFAICT, using the exact words of a source without using quotes is a copyvio. And your point is? Ah -- that you also edit the article? I would point out that I noted the first RfC/U in which I made zero edits about articles in which I made zero edits. The fact is that RIR appears to have a strong interest in the topic I mentioned in which I have zero interest. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:34, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
      In regard to Collect's statement above, RIR has indeed been quite active in other WP articles about companies that sell health-related products.
      1. One of them was Juice Plus (in 2009). See these interchanges at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive204#Block_review_on_User:Jackie_JP and Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive575#Vicious_Personal_Attacks_by_Dubbawubba_.28moved_from_WQA.29. A check user request was denied in a matter involving this article, at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Rhode_Island_Red. A WP:Civility accusation was handled at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Rhode_Island_Red.
      2. RIR was also involved in editing USANA Health Sciences ("a Utah-based multilevel marketing company that produces various nutritional and skin-care products") and was involved in a WP:3RR complaint at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive164#User:Rhode_Island_Red_reported_by_User:Leef5_.28Result:_article_protected.29. Other activity is here and here, where on 8 September 2012 he insisted on adding the phrase multi-level marketing to the article in much the same way he has in the VanderSloot piece. He made a similar change to that article as recently as 8 February 2013, with the Edit Summary "It is an MLM and the primary term is MLM, not 'network marketing.' "
      3. Rhode Island Red also submitted a fulsome notice regarding Amway at the Reliable Sources noticeboard (Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_97#Improper_synthesis_and_paraphasring_of_sources_on_Amway) on 14 May 2011.
      I agree in advance that RIR may not have been alone in his wrongdoings anent those articles, but am submitting these links to support Collect's statement that RIR has had a history of heavy editing of health-related products. GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:33, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
      Re. Collect's 'Per the first RfC/U on RIR, that appears to be where the primary problem is.' Hm. That RfC/U was way back in 2007: Comprehensive, detailed defence presented by RIR; numerous comments in his support; specious SPA allegation totally discredited; result: 'User agreed to take a break from editing the article' following another user's suggestion that he 'take a break from this article. Not as punishment, and not as an admission or acknowledgement that she has done anything wrong at all, but simply to gain experience in other articles and to take a break from this one.' (Emphasis added.) RIR then took a week's break. A six year-old RfC which ended without any critical result, action, punishment or requirement to acknowledge any wrongdoing at all is no more relevant here than Collect's own four year-old RfC/U alleging 'Collect is a tendentious editor with a long history of edit warring and gaming the system/using Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines in bad faith.' (Result: 'User warned and restricted.')
      On the face of it, RIR's Nov 2012 RfC/U might have more relevance, for being as recent as three months ago: Allegations: 'Civility , misuse of edit summaries , soapboxing ], biting the newcomers . Result: 'No consensus, closing admin suggested taking larger issues to arbitration,' And wait a minute, I'm trying to remember who were the certifiers who staged this farce . . . ah yes! None other than GeorgeLouis and Collect (the latter providing copious hot air and absolutely no diffs as 'evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute'). Their efforts to blame, shame and drive off RIR, viewed in the wider context of the concerted, long-running and futile campaign they have conducted against RIR across the VS talk pages and the drama boards, may be taken with a rather large pinch of salt. Writegeist (talk) 18:32, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
      Deal with what I write - now with what you wish. An RfC/U which was orchestrated by a banned user and votestacked with 14 people (including sock masters) from four years ago about an editor who is not being discussed here, is not of much import here. Is there any actual reason why you choose this moment to attack me personally?
      shows your exceedingly apparent anti-Mormon bigotry from the start.
      Of passing interest: the same Idaho Falls residential address is listed in White Pages for Frank, Vivian and Belinda. Mormons have such cosy domestic arrangements.
      As does
      Adding comments and edit summaries that stir shit-storms in teacups is routine for users whose history shows a marked tendency to misrepresent others' comments. As a strategy to discredit others it is doomed to failure (yet its practitioners endlessly repeat the same strategy in the hope of a different outcome). Rather, it tends to discredit the shit stirrer. For example: suppose user A comments at the talk page of a BLP on Dick Head, a notable member of the polygamous Church of MoreYoni, that Dick, his current wife and his ex-wife all appear to reside at the same address; and suppose user A comments further that "MoreYonis have such cosy domestic arrangements." User B, who cannot see a wikiteacup without trying to stir a storm in it, deletes the comments and harrumphs about "blatant religious bigotry" in the edit summary. It's clearly a fatuous accusation, so why make it? Groundless accusations are often projections. If other users now check B's edit history and see that his contributions routinely convey an "obstinate or intolerant devotion to his own opinions and prejudices"--the very stuff of bigotry--the full extent of the irony will be evident to all.
      Is quite sufficient evidence of one editor's animus to a specific religion, denigration of those who are members of that religion (unless one can not userstand what MoreYoni is, of course), and then pops here -- discussing an article ... about a member of that religion. And attacking everyone in his path <g>. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:56, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
      Collect, your taking blind pot shots, that have nothing to do with this thread, at Writegeist is further evidence of the inanity of this ban request thread. It's not going to go anywhere and it's not going to resolve any conflicts. I have on numerous occasions proposed ArbCom as the best and most resolute way to put and end to the animosity once and for all. If the disputants are truly acting in good faith, they should all relish the opportunity to present their case before ArbCom. However, I get the impression that you and George are resisting this option because you are assuming (correctly I would guess) that you wouldn't fare well, and that makes whining on the drama-boards a much more appealing option. I implore you, if you are serious about achieving resolution, accept this invitation to take the matter to ArbCom. If you're not, then piping down would be the appropriate course of action. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:25, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
      The MoreYon Dick Head Polygamist he comment Writegeist made was his edit at the VanderSloot article talk page - I fail to see how closer it could be to being relevant to a discussion about the VanderSloot article! Yet you think an edit at VanderSloot which is clearly bigotted has "nothing to do" with VanderSloot? How quaint! My edit here, moreover, was to note that you seem preoccupied with healt foods - which I would think is obvious from simply looking at your small number of articles unrelated thereto. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:34, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
      Not content with misrepresentation, 'one editor' has progressed to a rank lie. I challenge 'one editor' to provide a diff of the alleged 'MoreYon Dick Head Polygamist" comment at the VanderSloot article talk page. I have made absolutely no comment there containing any, let alone all, of those words. Put up or shut up. Writegeist (talk) 00:03, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
      Re. 'One editor' 's comments (lulz!). His reply to me has expelled enough hot air for a balloon ride over the Himalayas. One day 'one editor' might try stirring tea in a teacup for a change. (The choices are practically endless. Relaxing chamomile, for example, is thought to combat overstimulation, spasms and flatulence.) I note 'one editor' apoplectically objects to my mention of his RfC/U (which led to findings of EW, TE, DE, 'answering worries about his behaviour by dwelling on the behaviour of other editors', legal threats, wikilawyering, abusing sourcing policy and unevenly applying it to his own outlook and PoV, and making accusations without taking steps to find proof; which in turn led to his being warned and restricted), but conveniently misrepresents my comments by omission of their key point—namely the fact that, as I made crystal clear, I raised his RfC only to say that, despite it being more recent and having a much more serious outcome, it's as irrelevant here as his mention of RIR's, which led to neither warnings nor restrictions. 'One editor' objects that his RfC/U was not being discussed here until my comments alluded to it. Yet I cannot find any objection from him (did I miss it?) to his own comments when he resurrects RIR's much more ancient RfC, an episode which, until "one editor" mentioned it, was also not being discussed—for the simple reason that it, too, is irrelevant here.
      The sad fact is that 'one editor' and GeorgeLouis et al. repeatedly pile on at the talk pages and drama boards in their vexatious attempts—always unsuccessful—to shut down RIR. It's time they stopped. RIR's resilience to the bullying thus far is highly commendable. A more timid soul would have been run off by now. His suggestion to put up at Arbcom or abandon the campaign altogether seems well-intended and worthy of consideration. Writegeist (talk) 22:41, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
      'Self-evident bigotry is hard to excuse. And calling a person a Dick Head, a MoreYon and a polygamist clearly passes the smell test. Collect (talk) 23:34, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
      MoreYoni. Not MoreYon (which has an altogether different sound and a derogatory implication—as of course 'one editor' knows, and which is why he wrote it.) Oh well, MoreMisrepresentation from 'one editor' is no surprise. It's a widely remarked stock-in-trade of 'one editor's' tendentious style of debate. Smell test? It stinks. Writegeist (talk) 23:54, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
      And it remains a bigotted remark of the first water. And as I quoted your precise post above, I think you are now on fairly thin ice. (see Moroni]) Collect (talk) 23:59, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
      Your idea of precision is, shall we say, idiosyncratic. Persisting in a lie does not make it the truth, and it does nothing to serve your cause here. Writegeist (talk) 00:11, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
      I gave your exact talk page post with the exact diff where you made the exact post: Of passing interest: the same Idaho Falls residential address is listed in White Pages for Frank, Vivian and Belinda. Mormons have such cosy domestic arrangements. I take it you find making fun of religions and asserting that the "domestic arrangements" are "cosy" is somehow not as bigotted as others may see it? Collect (talk) 00:28, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
      You have commented here that I made an edit using the words "MoreYon Dick Head Polygamist" at the VanderSloot talk page. This is one lie. Another lie is that you have given a supporting diff. How many more toi come, Collect? Writegeist (talk) 00:36, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

      |}

      • Yes, for both. Clearly the article is not moving forward; there is way too much history and disruption here caused and furthered by these two editors. Drmies (talk) 02:41, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
      Clearly??? That's simply false. The article has in fact moved forward but not without considerable pain. What exactly does "too much history" mean. Seriously, at this point in the game we all need to be specific and not toss out vague straw man arguments. It's true that there has been "disruption" but it's quite inappropriate to pretend that I am somehow the root cause of the disruption; the assertion simply ignores the facts (and that multiple editors have been involved on both sides of the conflicts). I'll point out, once again, that I have repeatedly requested that we take this matter to ArbCom for greater scrutiny and a definitive resolution but the "other side" has cowered from the invitation. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:06, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
      That's an interesting point, but I don't remember ever seeing someone balk at the prospect myself reviewing the talk pages. Do you have specific links to where editors have specifically said that was a bad idea, other than Lord Roem who warned against its possible outcomes on all sides? Beyond this I can't think of a specific example where anyone has "cowered" (kind of a strong word), I just think most people haven't had enough interest in the idea to discuss it. I could be wrong of course, but do you have examples? Jeremy112233 (talk) 17:11, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

      Category:Misplaced Pages files with no copyright tag

      What should be done with this category? No templates appear to be populating it anymore, so it would qualify for deletion under CSD G8. But DumbBOT keeps creating daily categories for this and the bot operator appears to be inactive (last edit October 2011)...— Train2104 (talk • contribs) 00:26, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

      It's supposed to be populated with images that have been tagged with {{nld}}. No clue why that's not happening. Nyttend (talk) 03:03, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
      About a year ago, changes to the upload script made it very difficult to upload files here without specifying an acceptable license. As a result, I assume that essentially all files have a license on them (though the fraction with erroneous licenses might have increased). Once the backlog of unlicensed files was cleaned out, it is possible that there are essentially no unlicensed files left on Misplaced Pages. Of course, it is also possible that the bots or other tools looking for unlicensed files have simply stopped tagging them for some reason. So, my guess would be that the categories are empty because no files are being tagged {{nld}} any more. I tried it out and it looks like the tag still adds the category, so I'm assuming it just isn't being used anymore. Dragons flight (talk) 03:39, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
      That's because I just added it. When I left the previous comment, the template wasn't adding the category. Nyttend (talk) 03:44, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
      Although why exactly do we want two deletable image categories, one of which is a subset of the other? Sfan00 IMG (talk · contribs) already commented out the categories on the category itself. — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 03:49, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
      Because it exists, so it should be doing something. I've never particularly understood why we have both it and Category:Misplaced Pages files with missing copyright information, but the way the bot's going we can't get rid of it, so we might as well have it do something. It should definitely be G8-deleted once we can get the bot to stop creating subcategories. Nyttend (talk) 04:24, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
      I'm not so familiar with the details of bot policy, but allowing bots to run while their owners are (globally) inactive for more than a year doesn't sound like such a good idea. — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 04:36, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
      See the "DumbBOT replacement" section of WP:BOTR. Nyttend (talk) 16:33, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

      I agree the Category:Misplaced Pages files with no copyright tag (populated by {{untagged}}) and the Category:Misplaced Pages files with unknown copyright status (populated by {{no copyright information}} should be merged, as should be the templates themselves. (Why not simply redirect the one template to the other?) By the way, what we really ought to be doing is change WP:CSD to remove the 7-day waiting period for images that are uploaded with no source or copyright info at all. It is true that the number of such images, especially those with completely blank description pages, has dropped a lot since the introduction of the upload script a year ago, but a few such images still come through. In my experience, the number of potentially rescuable ones among them is absolutely negligible. If somebody goes out of their way to choose the old upload form to be able to upload an image without a tag, it always, always means it's a copyright violation. There's really no need to have all the bureaucratic costs of maintaining a waiting queue for these cases. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

      It's not practical to merge them when we have a bot still creating all of them, but once we get it stopped, I would strongly support merger. Someone over at WP:BOTR has suggested adding these categories to the blacklist, so I've done it. This is the first time I've ever edited a regex page, so someone PLEASE check my edit as soon as possible! I'm guessing that # characters mark comments, so I've added it before what I want to be effective code; if I did it right, please remove the # character. Nyttend (talk) 03:47, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
      • I'm concerned that the bot will still try to create the pages and won't be able to due to blacklisting. This is, IMO, likely to break the rest of the tasks, and in any case, creates unnecessary server load. I would strongly recommend either finding a way to alter the bot's tasks (contacting the owner, modifying the code, etc.) or making another bot which'll be able to take over the other tasks. This is one of the reasons I strongly prefer bots that use checkpages in their userspace that can be used to disable specific tasks. Blocking the bot would stop other essential tasks from happening. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 03:41, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

      Was there a change in our child protection policy?

      I don't have a recent example to link this to, it's just been something I've been wondering generally. In the past, it appeared that if young people posted their ages, they would be informed of the problems that could occur from posting their age and asked if they want it removed. Now we appear to be using a remove first and possibly ask questions later policy. Is this just a change in behavior or was policy changed sometime in the last year or so? Ryan Vesey 13:34, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

      Misplaced Pages:Protecting children's privacy has the relevant statements; practice dictates that the response is left up to the discretion of the respondant. Children are advised of the policy and asked to remove mentions of their age and personal details; revision deletion and oversight may be used to enforce such requests as the situation calls for. I don't know that this has changed in policy or practice in many years. --Jayron32 14:09, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
      What Ryan may have encountered is "discretion" being rather wide-ranging. So for example, if someone claims to be twelve years old and posts their full name, date of birth and school name, it's not at all surprising for an oversighter to come along and zap all three pieces of information immediately. What is rather more surprising is if someone claims to be fifteen years old and posts their age in full years only, and that gets zapped without discussion. The use of discretion is not a huge problem, but it does cause confusion and/or annoyance sometimes. (The sillier side of me foresees a future in which 11-year-old admins go around using revdel against personal information on the userpages of 20-year-old editors, strictly for their own safety.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:19, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
      As Demiurge says, it's less a matter of "the rules say we must nuke everything from orbit!" and more a matter of "Arbcom/oversight/admin discretion often tends to protect minors more aggressively than it may have in the past." At any rate, AN doesn't seem like the right venue to start an in-depth discussion of where the lines should be drawn, if that's what we need to do. Though I'm also not sure what would be the right venue, especially considering the potential BEANSiness of the issue - perhaps Misplaced Pages talk:Child protection or Misplaced Pages talk:Oversight? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:32, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

      If you talking about WP:CHILDPROTECT then the change that I have noticed is that ArbCom is no longer enforcing the policy. I have yet to receive any response or action on my last report to them. An earlier case which I detailed in an offsite blog post was reported to ArbCom but the user was blocked not by ArbCom and only after an admin noticed my follow-up blog post talking about ArbCom's lack of action. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:55, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

      • On ArbCom's enforcement of the child protection policy, our position remains that the policy will be enforced without question in all credible cases. If we do not respond to an e-mail, it's likely we have forgotten to action the thread, and a reminder should be sent to us. If we do not receive a report at all (for instance, if the case is reported in an off-site blog post instead), then we cannot possibly action it because we have no official channels of contact other than our mailing list. On whether oversighters have been more rigorously removing self-references by apparent minors, I suppose we have, though I consider that—as has already been argued above—a natural development of previous convention and not contrary to the child protection policy. I have access to the oversight tool, and for my own part (I can't speak for the other oversighters) I will always remove personal information published by apparent minors—and tell them about it afterwards. The possibility that the information could be used by a predator is, to me, too much of a risk to justify doing anything else in the cases I come across. AGK 16:10, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
      I have seen a recent incident on a talk page where an editor complained he didn't get a reply from Arbcom, though in that instance he wanted to know about some Arb action that he wasn't involved with, so I thought a lack of response was understandable in that context as an extension of WP:BEANS. Ritchie333 16:13, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
      AGK, do you think that "If we do not respond to an e-mail, it's likely we have forgotten to action the thread" is an acceptable excuse for ignoring reports of pro-pedophilia advocacy on Misplaced Pages? Is that an indication of how seriously you take such reports? In my case, I sent a reminder message to ArbCom just in case my first message had gone astray. No response to either message. Although I am limited in what I can say here, the case to which I refer concerns an editor that I have previously reported to ArbCom. My blog post is a reiteration of what I reported to ArbCom at the time with the addition of other evidence. I sent you enough information to know which user was involved and sent you a link to the blog post. I have no doubt that the post has been read by at least one member of ArbCom. With your permission I will post the link here, if you think it will help. Perhaps someone can cut-and-paste it into an email so that you won't have to click on a link. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:27, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
      We didn't ignore the report; the Committee did not see any reason to take further action. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 17:47, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
      Can you clarify which report you "didn't ignore" - was it the first one (who was indef blocked under the WP:CHILDPROTECT policy by an admin not in ArbCom), or the second one (who remains unblocked)? How is one to know whether you have declined to action a report, are ignoring a report, or, as AGK suggests, have simply "forgotten to action" it if you do not respond to such reports. I know you much get a lot of email, but I like to think that my record of productive collaboration with ArbCom should entitle me to at least a reply telling me that you're not doing anything. Why do you think I started posting these reports on Wikipediocracy's blog? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:16, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
      Those weren't rhetorical questions - who's next up on the ArbCom wheel of hit-and-run communications? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:15, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
      If anyone is actually interested in this topic, discussion is now split between here and the ArbCom talk page (although I would prefer that Arbs answer here, where more editors may see it). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:46, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

      (edit conflict)

        • The situation as I read it is that ARBCOM found that the community was undecided, and that continued work was needed on the policy, but it seems that work did not continue: the community dropped the ball -- for six years. This is not a situation that should be permitted to continue indefinitely. The real question is how to move forward to a clear policy that is effective, usable, and supported by both the community and the Foundation. Is this a matter for discussion at VPP or should it go to the calmer space at Meta? LeadSongDog come howl! 16:34, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
      As an oversighter, I usually remove personal information posted by minors. Usually the information is wholly inappropriate; however, if someone who is technically a minor, but seems reasonably mature posts general information such as I'm a student in high school and live in Newport, R.I. and am interested in nautical history, I might decline. If the minor is posting silly stuff, such as their phone number, or whether they are looking for a boy friend, oversight is done. Which is to say, the nature of what is posted gives lots of information about the maturity of the minor. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:05, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
      Wait, you're using your brains and judgement? Isn't that grounds for de-sysopping around here? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:15, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
      Not that I hold a grudge, but you once declined my request to OS some (RevDeled) edits where I'd revealed my IP address. Then again, I'd be pissed if someone removed my age from my userpage, so I guess you can't have everything. — PinkAmpers& 04:29, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

      Perhaps a stupid question, but...

      Why does Misplaced Pages:Child protection encourage us to report potential child endangerment to ArbCom rather than to the WMF? 28bytes (talk) 18:25, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

      My guess is that the WMF wants to wash their hands of it so there is no legal trouble. If they take full responsibility of potential child endangerment, they become liable for any mistakes they make/actions they don't take. That's just a guess though. Ryan Vesey 18:41, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
      It isn't a stupid question at all. NuclearWarfare, one of the newest Arbs, recently opined "The child abuse and other private stuff I think we should entirely not be handling at all; that should be the WMF's domain". The WMF have already acted in this capacity - they globally banned a user when it looked like the Commons community was unwilling or unable to do so. Personally, I don't care who does it so long as someone does it. I am deeply unsatisfied with ArbCom's performance in this area. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:59, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
      With only two people available WMF is prepared to enforce decisions the Arbitration Committee has made but is not able to fully investigate allegations regarding troublesome edits or editors. It is possible the volunteer Arbitration Committee is also not able to fully discharge this responsibility, particularly if its members were elected on the understanding that engaging in such heroic and risky efforts is not within the remit of the Committee. However, in extreme cases action needs to be taken; luckily extreme cases are usually obvious. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:51, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
      While I think it's probably a good approach to leave the deletion of unwisely-posted personal information to the volunteer staff, I don't think volunteers should be asked to deal with predators, stalkers or other nutjobs. That should be left to paid professionals who are accountable, understand how to work with law enforcement, and above all compensated for doing what is after all a rather unpleasant job. It's not as if the WMF can't afford to staff a department for that purpose. --SB_Johnny | ✌ 20:11, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
      While I don't disagree with you on that, SB Johnny, the reality is that for the moment we're stuck - WMF doesn't have the staff to do it, and for whatever reasons of budgeting and prioritization, they're not willing and/or able to hire the staff to do it. Which leaves...well, arbcom and the functionaries, pretty much, with the backup of random community members as far as reporting issues. It ain't fun for anyone, but it's what we've got to work with for now unless/until the WMF magically hires professionals to do the work. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:20, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
      What's even more concerning is that the English Misplaced Pages is the only site making efforts to protect children; none of the other WMF sites are covered by this, at least to my knowledge. --Rschen7754 20:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
      Not quite right. It is difficult to get anyone to make clear statements about this issue, but WMF Executive Director Sue Gardner said "Misplaced Pages has a long-held, zero-tolerance policy towards pedophilia or pedophilia advocacy and child pornography. The Wikimedia community is vigilant about identifying and deleting any such material. Any allegations to the contrary are outrageous and false" in response to a Fox News story entitled "Pedophiles Find a Home on Misplaced Pages". Commons has a proposed policy but in my opinion it is unlikely that it will ever become more than proposed until there is a major shift in the Commons community. There is also a proposed policy on Meta, which would cover all WMF projects. This will never move beyond proposal stage because, as I have been told in so many words, there is no procedure agreed for moving something from proposal to policy. Sue Gardner's statements would suggest that such a policy is already in place, albeit in an undocumented and haphazardly upheld way. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:17, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
      Specifically I am relating to the posting of too much information by minors, which only the English Misplaced Pages has policies regarding (as I have been told by a steward). --Rschen7754 21:47, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
      Sorry, I misunderstood which policy you were referencing. I agree that all projects should be mindful of children posting inappropriate information about themselves and it would be nice to see the WMF act to rectify this situation. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:46, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
      WMF seems to have the concept that English Misplaced Pages capable of managing itself. NE Ent 21:51, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

      As an oversighter I can tell you that we remove material under the heading "self-disclosure by an apparent minor" on a daily basis. I don't have any statstics but in my experience it is one of the most common suppression actions. Kids who are brought up using Facebook don't seem to get that there are built-in protections for minors on Facebook that are not present here, and that it is a really, really bad idea to post your age, name, what school you go to, etc. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for Meta to actually do something either, quite the opposite. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:41, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

      • I disclosed my age when I was 17, and that never got deleted. Then again, it was just my age, I've never included my date of birth, or anything else about me, other than that I live in England. Lukeno94 (talk) 10:18, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

      unblock review: User talk:Chutznik

      Unblocked by Optimist on the run. Nyttend (talk) 13:46, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

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

      Chutznik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

      This user was indeffed blocked for a gross violation of WP:OUTING, as well as vandalism and socking. There is basically no doubt that they did these things as part of the problem was them bragging about it at Misplaced Pages Review. They are requesting an unblock, the reasoning is on their talk page, but basically it is a standard offer request. It appears they have not been socking in the last several months and they are admitting to the wrongdoing of the past and promising not to repeat any of it, ever. I feel like this is the type of situation that should not be handled by one admin and am therefore soliciting broader input on the matter here. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:00, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

      Thank you, Beeblebrox. Let me add a couple of points. First of all, in past discussions it has been said that I don't understand why I was blocked. This is false. I was blocked because I made an edit as Throwaway666 (talk · contribs) where the content of the edit was "The result of the debate was you," and the edit summary was "Majorly's real name is ." I also made other edits around that time nine months ago from other sockpuppets that violated policies against vandalism and harassment. For everything I did wrong, I apologize to Majorly, to Sandstein, to the community at large, and to the individual editors who had to undo the damage I caused. Having done many hours of vandalism patrol, I recognize what a burden every vandalism edit places upon experienced editors whose time would be better spent improving articles. I was under stress in real life at the time I made those edits, but that is no defense. In the future, when I am under stress, I simply will not edit Misplaced Pages, or if I do, I will edit within policy.
      Second, EdJohnston pointed out in the discussion on the Administrators' Noticeboard three months ago that he would like to see an explanation of what I would do if I were unblocked. As a long-time editor (since November 2005) with 30,000+ edits, I should not need to explain what I have to offer. Nevertheless, I will. I am a law school student, so I might contribute in articles related to American law. Also, I am experienced at Wiki=gnoming, such as adding categories to uncategorized pages. I will not be editing every day or even every month, but I would like to come here once in a while to add content or to build the web by categorizing pages. I also have experience in community affairs such as RFCs and noticeboards, and would contribute there on occasion.
      Third, an unblock discussion is not a Request for Adminship. Some users said in the previous discussion that they don't trust me not to create sockpuppets and vandalize again. I'm not sure how to respond to that, but I'll try this: you don't have to trust me. You just have to impose the restriction (no sockpuppets, no vandalism), and I am fully aware of the consequences if I violate the restriction (another indef-block, and this time I may never get out of it). Consider the risk-benefit ratio. The risk is perhaps one chance in a hundred that I will go crazy and vandalize again, and someone will have to revert the vandalism and block the offending account. Although this is not a good thing, I wish to remind you that administrators on Misplaced Pages deal with this type of situation literally every hour of every day. Conversely, the benefit is that I may contribute hundreds or even thousands of productive edits to Misplaced Pages in the coming months and years. Unblocking me would be on the same rationale that we allow unregistered users to edit; each individual editor probably will not vandalize, and if they do, it's worth it to allow the vandalism to get the benefit of the positive contributions that come from unregistered editors. Just to be clear, I promise never to vandalize again, but if you don't trust me to keep that promise, you can fall back on the risk-benefit calculus. Chutznik (talk) 21:18, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
      Based on the premise there's been no socking, support unblocking. NE Ent 21:45, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
      Can't fault his logic. Support unblock.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:33, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
      I remember nothing of this, but since I'm mentioned, I appear to have been somehow involved? Anyway, this is one of the relatively few apparently sincere and useful unblock requests I've ever seen, and on that basis I suppose we can lift the block as probably no longer needed for preventive purposes. That is, provided that the people affected by the outing are notified and have no objection.  Sandstein  22:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
      • @Sandstein: it appears you had just relisted the AFD just before the outing/socking/vandalizing inciddent. The user who was outed was actually already inactive well before this incident so unless they pulled a clean start or something they are probably completely unaware of this. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:11, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
      • Support unblock with the understanding that future misbehavior will result in an indef block that will be a lot harder to get overturned. Should probably include a one-account restriction as well. ‑Scottywong| confess _ 00:58, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
      • Oppose. I'm sorry, and normally I'm a huge proponent of "anyone can edit", but there's just something here that feels wrong to me. I feel like we're getting played. I won't bother debating the issue, and on general principle I applaud giving a person a second chance - but my gut feeling here is "trouble waiting to happen". Sorry. I'm good with wp:rope and all, so I guess we'll see what happens. — Ched :  ?  01:24, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
      • Non admin support Everyone deserves the standard offer and this appears to be VERY genuine to me.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:48, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

      We've recently seen a successful RFA from a user who previously had a "dark period". It shows that people can reform. On this basis, plus reading the comments above and looking at their sock-puppet investigations, I've gone out on a limb and unblocked him. An optimist on the run!   06:43, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

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

      Category:Misplaced Pages protected edit requests

      There is a heavy backlog at Category:Misplaced Pages protected edit requests. Mopers Moppers (AKA admins) needed. Armbrust 00:55, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

      I trust that you mean "moppers" as opposed to "mopers".... Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:03, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
      Yeah, fixed. Armbrust 01:17, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
      Dang. I'm really good at moping. I thought my hour had arrived ;) The Interior (Talk) 02:37, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
      Oh well. Thanks for noticin' me. ;) — The Hand That Feeds You: 14:16, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

      Move this page please

      Resolved – --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:31, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

      Talk:List_of_cysts_of_the_jaws#Requested move

      Thanks. Lesion (talk) 15:49, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

      Please wait for consensus to be established at the RM discussion. GiantSnowman 15:54, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
      Thank you for fast reply. Honestly, I don't think anyone else cares about this page to comment. Lesion (talk) 15:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
      Think of it this way - if there is no opposition to the move then the closing admin should move it as uncontroversial. We will have to wait for a few days to see what input/comments are made. GiantSnowman 16:10, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
      • I think the problem might be that Lesion didn't know that if you genuinely believe a move is uncontroversial, you can just be bold and move it yourself. WP:RM is more for moves that might be disputed. This looks uncontroversial to me, and the editor who has dramatically expanded the page in the last couple of days agrees with the move, so I'm inclined to just close the RM as unnecessary and move the page, and on the 1% chance someone disagrees, they can move it back and discuss it some more. But I've used up my "unilaterally overrule another admin" tokens for February. GS, while you're technically right, do you care if I IAR/BURO this one? --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

      Thanks, Lesion (talk) 16:39, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

      • For future reference, closing instructions are at WP:RMCI. We had a growing backlog at WP:RM, any help in clearing it out would be appreciated (the way WP:RM is designed, there is not supposed to be any backlog, ever). I am happy to report that we have been making good progress, the backlog is down to 32 right now (from over 100), plus 28 that were relisted... Apteva (talk) 18:33, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

      What to do in this case

      There is a content dispute, we are unable to resolve in the talk page, the other party does not accept any type of mediated dispute resolution mechanism. What could be done in such a case? (Sorry if this is not the correct place to ask, I tried WP:EA but no useful suggestion came up.) Filanca (talk) 16:37, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

      A few ideas: Ask for a third opinion; leave notes on relevant Wikiproject noticeboards to ask for more opinions; open a thread at WP:DRN. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:03, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
      see the section called "POV Pushing" for more background on this  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  17:10, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

      (edit conflict)x2 If you are referring to this, then the other party does not need to accept an RFC if you do it on the article rather than the editor. Place an RFC notice on the talk page per the instructions here. Remember if it does not go your way, life still goes on. Rgrds. --64.85.217.110 (talk) 17:15, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

      (Facepalm Facepalm ) I forgot WP:RFC, which is kind of Dispute Resolution 101. Thanks, 64.*. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
      Since the other party strictly refuses to bring the issue to any sort of mediation, WP:DRN will not be a solution. RFC seem to be a good mechanism which does not require consent of both parties. I suspect WP:3O may still need cooperation from the other side. Thank you all. Filanca (talk) 19:10, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

      Vandalism block

      Minimalist, convenient technology does have its drawbacks. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 03:55, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

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

      }

      Could someone please add a schoolblock template to User Talk:204.109.64.203? For some reason the virtual keyboard on my tablet has decided to not let me type curly brackets. Thanks. Black Kite (talk) 17:23, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

       Done --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:25, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
      Ta. Back on a proper keyboard now :) Black Kite (talk) 19:32, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
      I strongly recommend purchasing a wireless keyboard if you plan to edit WP from a tablet. It will save you hundreds of additional keystrokes with that virtual keyboard, and you can always turn it off if you don't want to carry it with you. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:33, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
      Can't you copy/paste them from another page? Nyttend (talk) 02:02, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
      This reminds me of an anecdotal life story -- a few months ago, a couple of keys on my keyboard broke when I dropped it. I have no immediate replacement. So I had to keep the letters associate with the broken keys in an open notepad window and copy/paste them whenever needed instead of typing them. It was absolute torture! :) :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 03:55, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
      The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

      Forgot password, didn't register email address in preferences

      Is there any way to reset password if I provide an email address?

      Thanks, Regushee — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.245.191.6 (talk) 03:11, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

      I'm pretty sure you're screwed and will have to start over with a new account. There is basically no way to confirm you are the owner of the account at this point. I'd go ahead and provide an email address when registering this time. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:14, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
      It's technically doable, yes, but from what I've heard the sysadmins are reluctant to change passwords, and you need ironclad evidence that you're the same person who originally controlled the account. The simpler option is to request that a bureaucrat usurp your account and give you the name back... but that would still require some sort of proof. Did you ever:
      • Disclose your real-world identity?
      • Acknowledge an IP address you'd used?
      • Link your account to a profile on another website?
      • Meet a fellow (highly trusted) Wikipedian in person?
      — PinkAmpers& 07:03, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
      Just as a precaution, I left this message. A similar case can be seen at User talk:AGK/Archive/76#Checkuser me?. Ryan Vesey 07:12, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
      As the others have said, it's most likely that you will have to make a new account. In the future, I would recommend that you establish a committed identity. This may allow you to regain access should you lose your password. Mike V • Talk 19:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
      I'm guessing I would have to start a new account too (I'm DrWho42), since I haven't received any of the password reset e-mails?--2602:306:CD49:C570:69F9:9896:7701:EE3A (talk) 03:24, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
      Both of you should register new accounts, in my opinion, and use the same computer as you'd used in your old accounts. That done, you should request checkuser to confirm that the accounts are the same; if you get a kindly checkuser, you'll be able to have the connection confirmed. If that can be done, I doubt you'll have difficulty with getting a bureaucrat to do the usurp process. Nyttend (talk) 04:08, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
      Fair enough. Thanks for the help!--2602:306:CD49:C570:69F9:9896:7701:EE3A (talk) 04:20, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
      There's many kind checkusers, but I doubt any of them would use the tools for this purpose, at least not on this Wiki. It might be worth finding a checkuser from another project at meta:CheckUser policy to see if they'd do it. Ryan Vesey 04:57, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
      Anyone willing to follow WP:NOTLAW will, since our privacy policy is made to restrict the release of data about people who don't want it to be released; anyone who hides behind the letter of the law in order to refuse such a thoroughly harmless yet helpful request is letting a rule prevent him from improving or maintaining Misplaced Pages. After all, if the checkuser can't say "I'm sure that they're the same person", either "I'm sure that they're not the same person" or "I can't be sure if they're the same person or not" will be the correct response; nothing more needs to be said. Nyttend (talk) 05:21, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
      I haven't found it to be a letter of the law type of thing. It's more of a fact that en.wikipedia checkusers have decided that they're unwilling to do self-requested checks. But you may be right that someone might ignore this and do the check. Ryan Vesey 05:25, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

      Nea Salamis Famagusta FC

      Hello. Can you move Nea Salamis Famagusta FC to Nea Salamis Famagusta; The article is about the club in general, not only about the football club. It has a volleyball club too. I want to create an article only for the football club under the name Nea Salamis Famagusta FC. Xaris333 (talk) 14:12, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

      I agree that the article has to be moved, but an admin has to delete the Nea Salamis Famagusta page, which is now used as a redirect first, before we can move the article there. You might want to take a look at Misplaced Pages:Requested moves if you want to move another article later. Zaminamina Eh Eh Waka Waka Eh Eh 17:24, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
      Page moved. As Zaminamina said, this kind of request is better filed at WP:RM. Nyttend (talk) 18:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

      Thxs! Xaris333 (talk) 00:37, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

      pervasive technical error in deletion procedure

      A deletion of the user page User:My76Strat/NNU/Article as user request, has caused a great number of article talk pages to be listed at CAT:CSD. (e.g. Talk:Chen Zhongshi; Is there a quick fix, or do we have to remove the link manually from the talk pages? DGG ( talk ) 05:51, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

      It was a job queue thing. Just like any other page being transcluded somewhere else, the tagging of the userspace page for deletion (without a noinclude tag) meant that everything else would be tagged until the job queue caught up. Nyttend (talk) 12:45, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
      Somebody should delete the unnecessary fake that Metropolitan90 made -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:15, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
      All the transclusions have been removed, and so have User:My76Strat/NNU/Article and User:My76Strat/NNU/Welcome. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:22, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

      Need a second opinion on a deletion

      Yep, looks a good call to me too. Speedy deletion endorsed. Bencherlite 13:04, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

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

      I just deleted Li Tianyi as an attack page (CSD#G10), based on the clearly negative tone of some of the material. But then I went back to review the page, and see that it's slightly possible that there is a neutral version underneath. However, I'm very hesitant to undelete it, because I think that it would almost certainly be redeleted at AfD per WP:BLPCRIME—what is alleged to have done is pretty bad, but doesn't rise to the level of notability we require of criminals (plus, he's not yet been convicted, I think, so we can't even call him a criminal). An additional complicating factor is that all of the sources are in Chinese. Finally, the subject is a minor. If the article is likely to be deleted again at AfD, I don't think it's appropriate to undelete it for just that reason; there's no reason for potentially BLP violating material to appear even for a week in WP. But I don't want my judgment to just substitute for community consensus, so I'd like some admins to look at the deleted revisions and see if anyone thinks that there's any reason to undelete it. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:41, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

      I think this article fails marginally under WP:BLP1E. I'm not able to see the article, but had a quick Google about the event. The subject is only notable for this event and being the son of a notable figure, but notability isn't inherited. The deleition should stand. Blackmane (talk) 12:08, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
      There's no way that the earliest version is neutral — see the intro sentence beginning with "His hobby is". It's also a blatant hoax, at least in part: he became an Internet celebrity in late 2013. Besides being a good G10 candidate, you could have gotten this as G3, and if you'd removed the attack portions, you could have gotten it under A7. Nyttend (talk) 12:49, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
      The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

      Request moved

      Yeansu Lim, your request has been moved to Talk:Sea_of_Japan#Dear_webmaster. NE Ent 15:58, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

      Issue not solved

      A week ago, I posted at WP:ANI concerning a tiresome edit-war by Strangesad . The issue concerns a paragraph Strangesad wants to include. As I wrote, there is a broad consensus on the talk page not to include it , , , , . While no user has spoken out in favor of the paragraph, Strangesad still inserts it over and over again. , , , , , , . When I brought the topic to ANI, there was some support for a block on Strangesad , some concerns over his behavior , and no expressed opposition to my proposal. Strangesad kept calm while the matter was on ANI, but now that it's been archived (but not closed) he has again returned to revert over exactly the same issue again. May I ask that the issue be settled, one way or another?Jeppiz (talk) 19:07, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

      Blocked for 24 hours for edit warring against consensus. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:49, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
      • Ahha, so this is where Jeppiz goes to forum shop nowadyas. An inappropriate venue, based on the description at the top of my page right now.
      • I'm curious about the standards for fairness around here. I started an ANI on a related issue, was told to take it to dispute resolution, and did so. Jeppiz immediately accused me of "forum shopping." Jeppiz started a double ANI on SS and myself a week ago , got no results, and started another ANI (AN?) here because SS made a single edit. A week prior to Jeppiz's last two ANIs, in yet another ANI, he proposed a topic ban for me which got no result. Now he shows up here complaining again about the same essential issue and it is not forum shopping. Instead, he gets the block he's been fishing for for weeks. Why isn't this forum shopping?
      • SS requested a topic ban for Jeppiz, and was immediately accused of acting in bad faith by an admin and warned for it. Jeppiz proposed a topic ban for me, and nobody gave a shit. Why do admns think it is bad faith to ask for a topic ban for Jeppiz, but not when Jeppiz wants one for me?
      • Jeppiz's list of links above is dishonest. Almost everything he's said in the last weeks regarding this group of issues taken as whole has been dishonest. He's just gunning to see editors he dislikes get punished.
      • I'm sorry. It's pretty hard to believe admins are careful, unbiased, and fair--that they follow this rule: "administrators should consider all sides, since perceived unfairness can fuel issues." Or that they understand they are making things worse.
      • One thing that my critics have very right is that I have found it impossible to work on the subjects I initially registered to work on, because of all this drama. I'm not sure Misplaced Pages is the place for me. I dislike unfairness. Humanpublic (talk) 15:11, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

      Request: Indef block w/o talk page access for self spamming Indian businessman

      Resolved – by User:Bwilkins

      User is currently indef blocked for having repeatedly and obstinantly re-created their biography, being warned several times about Conflict of Interest, and showing no intent to discuss the validity of having such an article. User proceeded to restore their non-notable autobiography on their talk page, overwriting the indefinite block notice, CSD notifications, AfD notifications, orphaned non-free content notifications, etc. I restored the page to before their actions today, but I request a reblock without page access as it appears that the user does not want to read the issues and resolve the issues. I attempted to use WP:AIV to resolve this, but the friendly helper-bot truncated the message because the user was alleady indef-blocked. Hasteur (talk) 22:18, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

      Starship9000

      User blocked for 1 year. See my closing comment below, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:52, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

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

      Starship9000 (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · global contribs · central auth)
      Starship9000 is a newer editor who has been given a lot of rope already. He is a well intentioned editor; however, he lacks the maturity necessary to edit productively. Because of the difficulties he has, the time of several editors is needed to assist him and check his edits. He's had a number of copyright problems; however, these are, to the best of my knowledge, limited primarily to some other projects from which he's been blocked. He is unable to understand our policies as evidenced by his answers to the tests at User:Go Phightins!/Adopt/Starship9000. In addition, as can be expected in editors lacking in maturity, he is focused on recognition over quality. Not his desire to promote SkyScreamer to GA status (seen on the talkpage) is not a desire to improve the article go GA status, but rather to nominate the article to GA status so he can receive the GA barnstar. Don't get me wrong, his intentions are good, and he does make improvements. I helped him move Flint Covered Bridge to the namespace, which isn't long, but is nice as far as short stubs go. The concern I have though, is that the amount of work required by others to keep up with him and continue assisting him outweighs the quality he is able to produce at present. I've linked to the two articles, and I'm sure some other editors involved will be able to pull up some actual diffs. Right now, I think he really needs a break so he can come back when he has matured a bit. He has made some edits at Simple, and it's not immediately evident whether he has the maturity to edit there yet, but it's certainly a better fit than here. On his talk page, I suggested that he take a volunteer one year break, which he has declined. With that in mind, I would like to propose a one year block for his account. I personally don't know that one year will be long enough, but that seems to be a good length of time prior to a reassessment once we see how he edits after that time. Ryan Vesey 05:44, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

      About to head out, but check sulutil and luxo - it might be enlightening. --Rschen7754 05:45, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
      Can you clarify a bit? I've not heard of sulutil and/or luxo (is it one phrase or two separate words). Ryan Vesey 05:48, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
      Gotcha, global contribs, I'll get some links across the top. Ryan Vesey 05:50, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
      • Although it might be unfair to support a block based on his behavior on other wikis, the current blocks on the English Wikinews and Commons, plus a woefully premature RfA on the Simple English Misplaced Pages, do not make me inspire confidence with him. Moreover, his userpages on the Simple English Misplaced Pages and the English Wikinews say he wants to become admin there - this makes me believe he is not as interested in contributing to those projects as he is interested in collecting status there. I do believe he has maturity issues, judging from his edits on this project; this was definitely unnecessary. I also see him dodging valid concerns at User talk:Starship9000/Archive (February - present)#You may not upload images, where he makes a completely tangential comment "I want you to tell Astros4477 or his friend Dom497 that all the Pokemon XD:Gale of Darkness files need to be deleted because they are all from bulbapedia and they are copyvio's. Then, Ryan Vesey to go tell a Wikimedia Commons administrator like Courcelles, Cirt, Edgar181, INeverCry, Leyo, etc. Go on his talk page, not his wikimedia commons talk page. In fact,...." where he does not appear to understand the issues being brought up. Therefore, even though I have not been following this user's edits closely, I would support a block.-Jasper Deng (talk) 06:03, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
      • *sigh* I had really hoped it wouldn't come to this. I've been following Starship9000 (though not as who should say closely) since I deleted an article of his as a copyvio. The article in question, Ten question marks, about an obscure glitch in a Pokemon game, was copied without attribution from Bulbapedia, which has a license incompatible with ours (CC-BY-NC-SA). (Naturally, even if the license was compatible, the lack of attribution was a problem, and without either of those things, it's not even remotely a notable subject.) It's been my opinion that Starship is unfortunately just not old/mature enough to edit Misplaced Pages yet. I had hoped that he could be convinced to take a break on his own, or failing that, at least relegate himself to a mentorship (with Go Phightins) that would help ease him in, but it would seem that he has little desire to do either. All that said, I haven't been following him closely enough to tell how much active harm he's doing to warrant a block; I know he does a bunch of wacky things with SPIs and sockpuppets in general, and I guess he's started creating non-notable articles again, so it might be indicated. So, yeah, block I guess, but it kinda sucks. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 06:55, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
      • Support indefinite block until user is able to contribute effectively. Just reading through the talk page archives is enough to concern me. --Rschen7754 07:00, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
      • I understand the point of an indefinite block, I just feel like it is more difficult to deal with. It's very difficult for an editor to show that they have matured while they're still blocked. A one year block would allow him to start editing again to show this. If he still has problems, we add another block, if he doesn't we can be happy. Ryan Vesey 07:05, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
        • That's why we have WP:OFFER. However, I doubt he will be ready within a year, and furthermore, there is the possibility that due to the crosswiki disruption he may have to be globally locked, which has no chance of appeal. --Rschen7754 07:26, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
      • Comment, Just wondering, assuming there are no objections, how long will it be from the posting of this request until it is actually carried out? Is there a standard time period for these sorts of things? ★★RetroLord★★ 07:14, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
      • There's not really a consistent time period for these. Some discussions last for a week, others for a couple of hours. The real answer is, the discussion will continue until an administrator determines that consensus has been reached. Personally, I'd prefer if these never lasted less than 24 hours to give the greatest possible chance that our editors from all over the world will get a chance to see it. Ryan Vesey 07:19, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
      • Support one year block. (Edit conflict x2). This is hard for me to write, since I see promise in this editor and I have no doubt that he could become a great editor if he dedicated himself to learning and following the rules. The reason I support a block is not his inexperience, but it is his pretending to follow the rules while continuing to ignore them. As an editor who has followed his progress for a while, I have repeatedly thought he was on the right track, only to be disappointed. He knows the rules just well enough to manipulate them, which means he poses a risk to all of the projects in which he participates. For example, he has abused image uploading, IP editing, AFD, and several other aspects of Misplaced Pages normally reserved for experienced editors. A warning he received on Wikinews before his ban says it well (dif). He has shown no honest desire to learn the rules of Misplaced Pages and he breaks his promises as soon as he makes them, most recently his promise not to engage in most types of editing until the completion of all of his adoption tests. I wish it hadn't come to this, but I believe a one year block is in order to give him a chance to think about what he has done and, honestly, to become a bit more mature. I echo Writ Keeper's sadness. Andrew 07:21, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
      • Support One Year Block over an indef block, for the reasons stated above. It will be very hard for Starship to prove maturity if he is blocked. The points raised about his behaviour on the wiki, and other wikis, is quite worrying and for those reasons I support the block. ★★RetroLord★★ 07:28, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
      • Question. Is there a way to ban him from all projects for a year or would that require action from ArbCom/WMF? Andrew 07:32, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
      • Support indef block with something like Standard Offer - I think we need to see some sign of understanding and commitment to behave before unblocking, rather than the passage of an arbitrary amount of time. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:48, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
      • Support block: Only commenting here as a blocking admin on English Wikinews where he also requested an unblock. His block was declined and visible at n:User talk:Starship9000 on the grounds he does not see how he can write without violating copyright and does not appear willing to accept some form of community sanction in order to work to regain full editing priveleges. I think global block premature but local indef block until he can fully articulate copyright policy, demonstrate editing on another project without copyvio problems, and accept community inplaced sanctions to watch. --LauraHale (talk) 08:30, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
      • Support One Year Block (over an indef block per Ryan's reasoning). One of the big problems here (apart from his impulsiveness and social immaturity) is that his language skills are still very immature. I suspect it's one of the reasons why he finds the policy pages and adoption tutorials so difficult, and why he continues to have copyright issues. I just removed a section from an article he created yesterday which had been copied from another website. The rest of his attempts are almost invariably unattributed copying from other Misplaced Pages articles (ditto at Simple). If you compare the language he uses when communicating on talk pages and in edit summaries where he has to write the text himself and the one that appears in articles, the difference is striking. If this is down to simply being too young and not having attended school long enough, it may right itself eventually, but it would take a least another year. If the language problems are due to other factors, well, that may be a bit more insoluable. Voceditenore (talk) 09:19, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
      • Support one year block for the reasons given elsewhere; Starship9000 is just too young/immature to understand policies, or people's guidance for that matter. He's also violated several conditions of the terms that allowed him to stay for this long (such as creating new articles). Lukeno94 (talk) 09:39, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
      • Support one year block, indef would be unpedagogical. However, pretty please don't block this guy before giving him an opportunity to respond. Max Semenik (talk) 10:15, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
      • User blocked for one year for flagrant disregard of conditions for staying unblocked after previous block expired. User has been offered enough advice and chances (see also my talk page), and to continue this discussion here at ANI is a waste of everyone's time. We can teach people about policies and how to use editing tools, but helping youngsters to reach a level of maturity that their age isn't ready for is not within our remit. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:48, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
      The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

      Requests for permissions/Reviewer

      Not quite sure if this is the right spot for this, so if it isn't please move it.

      User:Jayakrishnan.ks100 has made a request then cancelled that request. Is there a procedure for this? Should it be removed from the page or should an admin come and tag it with  Not done and let it be archived? Thanks ★★RetroLord★★ 11:37, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

      We don't usually remove. Tag and it gets archived. Normally, you ask this on the talkpage for RFP :-) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:43, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
      Sorry for posting in the wrong spot, but thanks for the answer Bwilkins ★★RetroLord★★ 11:56, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
      Categories: