Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Seb az86556 (talk | contribs) at 18:36, 19 March 2013 (→Topic ban for Humanpublic). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

• For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
• If you are new, try the Teahouse instead.
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Misplaced Pages:Requests for oversight.
• For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.
• Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.
• Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• If you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, use {{RfC closure review}}

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

Template:Active editnotice

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

Archives

Index no archives yet (create)

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

• WP:CR
• WP:RFCL
• WP:ANRFC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other areas tracking old discussions

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

Administrative discussions

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

(Initiated 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)

 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)

 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)

• Done Soni (talk) 21:41, 24 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. JJP_Master (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)

• Consensus seems clear, I don't think my Indian-ness poses a WP;COI here, closed. Soni (talk) 22:03, 24 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

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

Recent changes tab in Preferences - special choices for administrators

As a new administrator, I am a little dismayed to see Recent Changes and watchlist pages filled with new buttons - a rollback button for every change and block beside every contribs. So many opportunities to do something I'd regret! This may be convenient for some tasks, but for now I can't see myself doing a rollback without first looking at the diff or blocking someone without first looking at their contributions. Moreover, multiple discussions have made it clear that many would rather use Twinkle or STiki for most rollbacks.

Proposal: Add administrator-only preferences to the Recent changes tab in Preferences that allow them to hide the block and rollback buttons. RockMagnetist (talk) 07:49, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

This might be better discussed at WP:VPT, though I agree that being able to turn off these features might be a good idea (though over 5 years as an admin I've only imposed two accidental blocks - one on myself and another on an admin with an impeccable record of good behaviour!). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:58, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

The discussions at WT:Rollback seem to me to be largely people who aren't admins; I think they're trying to decide whether to request rollback or to use Twinkle. That being said, I support your proposal; the more things we can disable if we desire, the better. I won't use it, but anyone should be able to change it if possible. Nyttend (talk) 12:54, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Not sure about the block, and I am not admin, but I did hit rollback accidentally on several occasions from my watchlist - typically if there is a notice which unfolds slowly, you think you are going to see an article and in fact you rolled back the changes in an article couple of rows above. (That said, as a global rollbacker I am hopeless - even if there is such interface, I would probably continue having rollback links on the watchlist).--Ymblanter (talk) 13:55, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I suppose WP:VPT would be a good place to discuss this, but first I'd like to know how the users of these features feel about allowing them to be hidden (although I can't think of any disadvantage). I'm not sure what the appropriate follow-up would be - a feature request? RockMagnetist (talk) 14:57, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Clicking 'rollback' by mistake happens to the best of us, and is the most minor issue imaginable (as long as you realise what you have done and self-revert!). You cannot 'acidentally' block on your Watchlist; if you click 'Block' it takes you through to a confirmation page where you choose length / reason etc., so no need to worry about doing that. GiantSnowman 15:15, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

In that case the buttons are not a hazard, but still a nuisance if I'm only going to use them by mistake. RockMagnetist (talk) 15:35, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Hence the reason many admins have an alternate non-admin account (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:40, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

As Snowman says, blocking takes more than one click, but I would welcome a facility to disable rollback: since starting to use an iPad with its very sensitive touchscreen I have more than once done one inadvertently. and I am not confident that I would always notice. JohnCD (talk) 16:07, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

If you want to remove all rollback links from your watchlist, add the following code to your common.css page:

.mw-rollback-link {
display:none
}

Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:53, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

The code I got when I looked into it was .page-Special_Watchlist .mw-rollback-link {display:none} which only removes it from my watchlist, not other places it appears. Monty₈₄₅ 16:57, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I thought JohnCD et al wanted it disabled on all special pages like Special:Contributions and not just on the watchlist. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I guess we have even more choices now! I used the general one and I'm happy with the result. Thank you, Reaper Eternal. Is there a code for the block button? RockMagnetist (talk) 19:58, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

By using the code .mw-special-Watchlist .mw-usertoollinks {display:none;} in my vector.css I managed to perform the awesome feat of removing the talk, contribs, and block links for every user that appeared on my watchlist, but unfortunately it looks like that is as much fine-tuning as css gives us. — Mr. Stradivarius 13:59, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

That would be an amusing situation - an administrator with less control than an ordinary editor! My feeling is that administrators are not chosen for their CSS skills, so if the hide options are desirable, they should be made easy. RockMagnetist (talk) 15:39, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Privacy regarding e-mail communications

As email sent through the Misplaced Pages interface is unencrypted as it is sent across the internet, is it acceptable for privacy reasons to use a TOR node when sending through the Misplaced Pages interface?--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 14:42, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Nobody is prohibited from using Tor on Misplaced Pages. Remember that. But there's not much advantage (in fact it's probably a liability as you don't know who's sniffing you). Use HTTPS for encryption between you and Misplaced Pages - your mail will not be encrypted between Misplaced Pages and the recipient. -- zzuuzz 17:36, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:TOR. Using a throwaway mail account seems to be a lot easier anyway. 80.132.71.175 (talk) 12:23, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

A little conisistency in editing would go a very long way

Beeblebrox (talk) 20:38, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

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

I consult Misplaced Pages quite often as a starting point. Children and students are warned not to place too much credence in what is written here - inaccuracy and bias are two of the obvious dangers - but I find it useful to get an overview of a subject and to track down other web sites for further detail. So I have seen quite a few Wiki pages and again and again I am struck by how inconsistent much of the editing. I personally have been hauled over the coals for not 'sourcing'. A good example were my edits on my old school, The Oratory School in Woodcote: my entries were deleted wholesale by Wiki jobsworth for not following the rules. Yet earlier on today, when I looked up the entry on British actress Julie Goodyear, I spotted several claims and a quote about here which were 'unsourced' and had remained unchallenged for quite some time. I wasn't particularly bothered, but I did leave a comment - I didn't remove the references - to the effect that IF the various jobsworths delight in working 'the rules' are to be taken seriously and at their own valuation, the least they can do is to edit consistently. What happened? My comments was removed by a jobsworth, but the unsourced claims and quote were allowed to stand. Get a grip, chaps. If you really want to play the dedicated committee bore, at least do it properly and consistently. PP — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pfgpowell (talk • contribs) 17:09, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

There are 4.1 million articles. There are 18.6 million registered users. There are 4.294 billion possible anonymous IPv4 addresses. Obviously the 1600 admins can't watch everything - we rely on editors like you to fix things - the encyclopedia that anyone can edit is also the encyclopedia that anyone can fix (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:24, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

It's not the administrators I am taking to task, it's the sheer bloody-minded, pettifogging inconsistency of the various editors who can spot the individual tree no bother, but are apparently oblivious to the forest as a whole. Julie Goodyear, and particularly her soap character Bet Lynch, were once houshold names and she is still very well known. Yet the glaring inconsistency in her entry remained unchallenged for a long, long time. On the other hand some idiot jobsworth who knew 'the rules' but seemingly very little else ketp deleting my additions to an entry on my school because - as I said - they were not 'sourced'. I told him I was the source, but he wasn't having that, oh no. Come on, I take our point, but you apparently don't take mine. PP — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pfgpowell (talk • contribs) 17:37, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Pfgpowell, if you truly had taken Bwilkins' point, you'd be busy addressing the inconsistancies you've identified. Please read WP:Identifying reliable sources to discover how one cannot be one's source for one's edits. Tiderolls 17:42, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

• As the poster has made it clear they are intending to issue a general complaint and not to request any administrative action I am closing this thread. If you wish to discuss such general issues (an actual proposal for what you might actually want tro do about it would also be a good idea) you may open a thread at one of the village pumps or initiate an WP:RFC for a broader dicussion of the general issue. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:38, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Backlog at WP:UAA

We have a bit of a backlog at WP:UAA. If some admins can please unclog that backlog, it would be appreciated. Thank you. And Adoil Descended (talk) 00:06, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Evangp unblock request

Evangp (talk · contribs) has appealed his block via UTRS, citing the standard offer. He claims not to have used any alternate accounts in the last six months, and would like to edit constructively on the subject of concert venues and related pages. A check by User:DeltaQuad revealed no current sockpuppets from Evangp's current range. I'm bringing the issue here for community discussion as per usual. I've also reenabled Evangp's talkpage access for the duration of this discussion, and will copy over any statements he wishes to make; please do check his talkpage in case I miss anything, though. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:56, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

For the record, while I didn't find any active socks on the range he was using, this does not mean that he doesn't have more than one range and have socks over there. CU can't prove a negative. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 17:58, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I found this message on Evangp's talk page: "Please unblock me. I promise to be good and edit constructively. I don't think it would be fair to block me forever."

Unblock. By the standard offer. With regards, Iselilja (talk) 00:07, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• Unblock. Two years is long enough and I believe in second chances. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:48, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
• Unblock per the standard offer. One last chance to edit Misplaced Pages constructively doesn't hurt by a lot. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:56, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
• Unblock — As I look over Evangp's contribution history and block log, I get the sense that he is relatively young. He generally contributed in good-faith during his first period of activity, but was lacking in a basic understanding of notability, and was thus unable to assert the significance of the subjects for which he'd created stubs. After numerous warnings, he was eventually blocked for three months, which was subsequently made indefinite for evasion through sockpuppetry. My impression of him now is that he has matured substantially since 2010, and I would not be surprised if he now possesses the competence needed to become a very productive contributor. I strongly support giving him another chance. Kurtis 06:56, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
• Comment Part of "Standard offer" is, Promise to avoid the behavior that led to the block/ban. It would help if Evangp could address the specific issues that led to the block - a) an understanding of the key requirements for an article (hint: read Misplaced Pages:Your first article), b) a promise to be civil, c) a promise to never sock again. I don't think indefinite blocks should be lifted just because someone says "I promise to be good". WP:SO says, administrators are not required to unblock you, especially if you do not provide any reason why you should be unblocked other than your avoidance of Misplaced Pages for six months. You should still provide a clear reason why you should be unblocked. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 14:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Aside; are we doing CU's without a specific reason now? That happened with MF this week, and caused rather a fuss. The CU here looks like it was fishing. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 14:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

"Fishing" is to check an account where there is no credible evidence to suspect sockpuppetry, per WP:NOTFISHING. We know that Evangp has engaged in sockpuppetry in the past, and by saying that he's not done it in the last six months, he admits that he did it at one time. In such a situation, it's absolutely appropriate to perform a CU on him: "trust but verify". Nyttend (talk) 15:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

It depends what one considers "credible evidence" - in this case, the fact that someone socked 6 months ago seems to be the only consideration - I don't think anyone has produced any evidence to indicate socking since then, and the CU can only see back a few months, so that 'evidence' (that they once socked) doesn't have any bearing on whether they've socked within the time that can be checked. I don't necessarily think that it is wrong to CU people who have socked in the past, but I do think the policy needs to be clearer to avoid future DRAMA about whether a CU is appropriate. To me, the current procedural policy of evidence suggesting abusive sock-puppetry means that there must be something within the period we can actually check. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 16:06, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Ban Proposal: Acoma Magic

Acoma Magic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

After Acoma Magic's indefinite block for edit warring and block evasion, he has created eight sockpuppets (five confirmed, three suspected). He has a history of edit-warring on particular articles relating to homosexuality. His confirmed socks are UK and Australia-centric and edit in the same subjects of LGBT (woth the same POV issues), UK and Australian subjects, Oprah Winfrey and video games over five months since the block. The same issues remain with removing POV tags on articles such as Big Society (), which his most recent sockpuppet did after the previous Acoma sockpuppet was blocked. See also Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Acoma Magic. This last round of sockpuppetry is the final straw. I therefore suggest that he be indefinitely banned by the community.

• Support as nominator. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support. We really need to introduce something into the banning policy — something like "a blocked editor who has been caught socking X number of times is to be considered banned by default". People like this definitely need to be told to get-out-and-stay-out, but these pro forma ban discussions really aren't necessary. Nyttend (talk) 01:56, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• I know. I just don't want to cause too much drama here. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:57, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• Here and now isn't the place to do that; I'm not objecting to what you're doing in particular. I'm just expressing my frustration at the situation. Nyttend (talk) 02:02, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• See the "Indefinite sitebans for repeated sockers" section of WT:BAN, where I've proposed enacting this idea into policy. Nyttend (talk) 02:19, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support ban. Funnily enough, I made the same suggestion as Nyttend in a previous site ban discussion for an even more prolific sockpuppeteer. Blackmane (talk) 09:49, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support — More important than the fact that he is evading the indefinite block placed on his original account is the fact that he continues to do exactly the things that got him into trouble in the first place. A site ban will prevent him from being able to continue disrupting LGBT-related articles, especially as this seems to have been the sole focus of his editing career. Kurtis 04:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Already defacto banned. The "defacto ban" was relentlessly pushed by a clique of editors some time ago and forced back into the banning policy page. Now those editors who insisted upon that are nowhere to be found, even though at the time they were raising holy hell about how AN/I was "littered with pointless ban discussions". Anyway, according to their "defacto ban" thing, this blocked editor is already banned so we should apply that policy as it is written. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 16:19, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - You've used that stance before, and I still don't understand it. If he's already one kind of banned, why is that an argument to not ban him in another way? It's just more of a "making it official" type thing. Sergecross73 msg me 16:21, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose he was blocked for 3RR for 72 hours, then indeffed for socking. While he is defacto banned already, he should be given the chance to convince an admin that he will no longer sock nor edit war. I don't see either of these things happening, but his sock edits, while some are POV, aren't entirely problematic. There are serial sockpuppet farms that have existed for YEARS that have never been cb'ed. AM should be treated no differently.  little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  18:34, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Review my action, please

I've just discovered substantial copyvios in our Knesset article, so I've reverted the content in question to its pre-copyvio state and revdeleted the 103 revisions since that time. Was revdeletion the right thing to do here, and if so, was the deletion of all 103 revisions appropriate? Nyttend (talk) 02:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

The very first criterion listed at the revision deletion policy page pertains to "blatant copyright violations", so I would definitely agree with your decision there. The only question in my mind is whether or not there was some salvageable material added within the two-year time interval from May 2011 to the present date; you may want to check that out, if you've got the time and energy. Also, someone should make sure that the article itself is up-to-date, as this was a revert that took the page back almost two years. Kurtis 05:23, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposed move for bad image list

This might affect admins who deal with image vandalism etc., so I'm posting this here. It has recently become technically possible to rename MediaWiki:Bad image list, and there is currently a proposal open at its talk page to rename it to MediaWiki:Restricted-use media list. Any and all comments are welcome. — Mr. Stradivarius 08:30, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban for Humanpublic

In the last months, the behavior of Humanpublic has been discussed repeatedly here. I won't include all the diffs of his long history of uncivil behavior as they can be found in previous AN and ANI discussions about Humanpublic, so I'm focusing on his displayed arrogance towards admins as well as his latest behavior.

• Already in mid February, an admin gave him a final warning for his behavior . As can be seen, Humanpublic did not care one bit and followed up by this message to the admin who warned him .
• A week later, after a discussion about Humanpublic's behavior at ANI, another admin issued the following final warning over his behavior . Again, Humanpublic displayed his disrespect for the admin who warned him , .
• In early March, Humanpublic's pal Strangesad was blocked for edit warring, which caused Humanpublic to throw a rage, go straight to the article to repeat the edit warring for which Strangesad was blocked . This was against the expressed consensus on the talk page, the following diff is the only contribution Humanpublic bothered to make at the talk page . To avoid a block, he then decided to leave Misplaced Pages, again displaying his disrespect for admins . At that point three more admins concluded that Humanpublic was not fit for Misplaced Pages , and that a topic ban would be necessary if Humanpublic came back .
• Now, Humanpublic is back and behaves exactly like before, now even edit warring over both articles , and talk pages , .
• So in short, Humanpublic's long history of disruptive behavior (not included here as it's been the topic of the discussions that led to the previous "final" warnings) and lack of civility led to a final warning by an admin in mid February. He expressed his contempt and continued, leading to a final warning by another admin in late February, to which he reacted with more contempt and continued until declaring that he leaves Misplaced Pages, upon which three more admins concluded that he was not suitable for editing Misplaced Pages, and that a topic ban would be necessary if he returns. It's no surprise that he returned quickly, so based on the above I suggest that Humanpublic be topic-banned from articles related to Christianity and Argument from silence.Jeppiz (talk) 18:30, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I opposed this the last time, and I still think we can deal with him, but it's really becoming annoying. This assessment nails it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 18:36, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Administrative backlog