Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by EdwardsBot (talk | contribs) at 15:43, 9 December 2013 (→The Misplaced Pages Library Survey: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Good articles:

• Middlesex (novel)
• Have a nice day
• Shiloh (Naylor novel)

Archives

March 2008 – June 2008 June 2008 – January 2009 January 2009 – May 2009 June 2009 – October 2009 October 2009 – April 2010 April 2010 – September 2010 September 2010 – February 2011 February 2011 – October 2011 October 2011 – October 2012

Notes

AfD

• tools:~betacommand/reports/afd
• tools:~betacommand/AFD.html
• tools:~snottywong/afdadminstats.html
• tools:~snottywong/afdstats.html

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL · page history · Books Ngram Viewer
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL · toolserver ·
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

• Ask Mathbot (talk · contribs) to refresh Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Old by accessing http://toolserver.org/~mathbot/cgi-bin/wp/afd/afd.cgi

Copyvio

• Copyright Violation Detector
• User:CorenSearchBot/manual

Miscellaneous

• http://case-sensitive-search.appspot.com/ – provides case-sensitive filtering of Google searches
• Misplaced Pages:A Primer for newcomers
• User:Fæ/help/photo and Misplaced Pages:Contact OTRS
• http://www.ip-adress.com/ip_tracer/
• User:Giraffedata/comprised of
• User:SMcCandlish/Logical quotation
• User:Tony1/How to improve your writing
• Misplaced Pages:Template messages/Sources of articles
• Misplaced Pages:Did you know/DYKcheck: javascript:importScript('User:Shubinator/DYKcheck.js'); dykCheck();

Arbitration motion regarding Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement

By a vote of 9-1, the Arbitration Committee has passed the following motion:

Remedy 4 ("Malleus Fatuorum topic banned") of Civility Enforcement is vacated, and replaced with the following:

Malleus is topic banned from making edits concerning the RFA process anywhere on the English Misplaced Pages. As an exception, he may ask questions of the candidates and express his own view on a candidate in a specific RFA (in the support, oppose, or neutral sections), but may not engage in any threaded discussions relating to RFA. An uninvolved admin may remove any comments in violation of this remedy, and may enforce it with blocks if necessary.

For the Arbitration Committee, --Lord Roem (talk) 19:25, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Closure thank you

• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure

: (

- jc37 22:45, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Re your edit summary: When I was reviewing the close archives, I looked at the last signature of each section and mistook Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 4#Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Education Program extension as a close of Nathan Johnson (talk · contribs)'s because he was the one who noted the close was done. So part of the blame falls on you for being too exhausted after your extensive close rationale at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Education Program extension to note that you had done the close. ;) Now fixed. Cunard (talk) 02:37, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

rofl, wow, I had forgotten about that close.

No, I was referring to two recently that I typed "done" at AN. (And as I'm sure you could tell, I was just teasing above : ) - jc37 02:54, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I knew you were teasing. :)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 4#Template talk:Notability#RfC and Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 4#Talk:Elizabeth Cotton, Lady Hope#RfC: proposed move were closed at 08:14, 6 November 2012 (UTC) and 08:03, 6 November 2012 (UTC), respectively, while I posted my thank you note at 02:51, 6 November 2012 (UTC), so you were too late for that note. So maybe you were expecting me to have predicted your two future closes? ;) Cunard (talk) 03:09, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

ROFL. A victim of time, once again, I see : )

Shame some heartless admin deleted this... - jc37 03:16, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

That looks like a good WP:DRV candidate to overrule that admin abuse. I wonder if that heartless admin's been relieved of his superpowers for deleting one of the most important categories on Misplaced Pages. Cunard (talk) 04:54, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Not as yet. But who knows? If Star Wars VII is a further sign of that admin's pattern of dislike for fiction-related topics and other such fancruft... - jc37 05:00, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Star Wars Episode VII (2nd nomination) is one of the more egregious abuses of the tool I've seen in recent memory. How is "It's Star Wars" not a sufficient reason to override all Misplaced Pages policies, including bothersome, inconvenient ones like WP:NOT#CRYSTAL? Cunard (talk) 05:04, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh don't worry, it seems someone managed to get the DRV underway. I'm sure that that will show that evil heartless admin to ignore head counts in closing. - jc37 05:10, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Rofl

The above discussion in mind, this edit was my laugh out loud moment today : ) - jc37 05:10, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

;) Cunard (talk) 05:13, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Request

Would you please reconsider the #Civility_case_clarification_request part 1-7 of your questions? More specifically, I'm concerned that it asks the candidates to pre-judge an existing editor in a very probing manner. More generally, it introduces a highly controversial situation on the project into an already tedious area of elections. I'm fairly certain you could achieve the same goal of discovering how candidates feel about vested contributors and civility with less specific questions, such as part 8 of that section. Also, I think the first question in #RfC_closes is inappropriate as spam within the context of asking a question. Specifically the phrase "If you are interested in helping the community assess the consensus at RfCs and other discussions, please consider watchlisting it." Thanks. MBisanz 05:22, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Less specific questions are unhelpful. The civility case clarification request questions have the candidates take a stand on an issue that has sparked much dissent in the community. Some have had the courage to answer the questions directly. Some have not. Of those who have answered and did not say "recuse", it is remarkable that unlike the current arbitrators not one of the new candidates has supported a ban on Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs). If these editors are truthful and are elected to the Arbitration Committee, I am confident that this disappointing incident will not be repeated this year.

One arbitrator who prejudged Malleus and said he was never a Wikipedian should have recused but did not. The same committee that handed down rulings at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement judged the clarification request. Because arbitrators can repeatedly judge another editor, your argument that this "pre-judg" of another editor is untoward falls apart.

All of the answers to my questions, including those to the RfC closes ones, will influence my decision to support or oppose the candidates. Cunard (talk) 04:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Questions

Ok, I attempted to respond to your questions.

But I wonder at how they apply to being an Arbitrator? The ones concerning administrator closes, in particular.

I also think that a bit more neutrality in the questions might have been nice. In my estimation there was more than a bit of cherry picking involved in several questions.

All that aside, some were rather thought provoking, and I thank you for that : ) - jc37 09:04, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Challenging questions, thanks, I'll answer them one by one. Just a suggestion for the future: It would be nicer and less of a wall of text if you just asked your questions without offering your arguments, or your view on a possible range of answers. The way they are formulated right now might give the impression that you have an axe to grind, and that I want to please you with my answers---a lose-lose situation. --Pgallert (talk) 09:33, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I might echo Pgallert's view on how to format the questions--having a subpage with your own thoughts might clean up the page a bit. I've taken a first stab at answering the questions you said you wanted to see the most, I'm going to try and work on the rest this weekend. Thanks, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 16:08, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Jc37: The questions could have been more neutral, I agree.

The first RfC close question gauges whether candidates possess the skill of assessing the consensus in complex discussions. If a candidate's answer indicates that the candidate dislikes reading uninteresting, lengthy discussions, then that candidate would make for a poor arbitrator, someone who is tasked with reading reams of evidence and statements. The question is also an attempt to increase the pool of available RfC closers at the frequently backlogged WP:ANRFC.

The second RfC close question is to determine whether candidates believe that admins have special competence or exclusive power over content decisions. Candidates' beliefs will affect their treatment of admins and non-admins at arbitration.

The third question forces candidates to take a critical look at how there is no process for contesting RfC closes and determine whether this is a problem. Contested RfC closes may be brought to the Arbitration Committee in the future if there is no review process.

I'm glad you found my questions thought-provoking, as that was my intent.

Pgallert and David Fuchs: Thank you for comments about my questions. I understand how the the text of some made answering them more difficult. David Fuch's comment is a good suggestion that I will consider if I ask questions in the next arbitration election.

Thank you, Jc37, Pgallert, David Fuchs, and the rest of the candidates for your answers to my questions. Cunard (talk) 04:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Your question on to arbcom candidates

You had included my name in the "Some editors considered leaving Misplaced Pages:" section (identified as a result of the comments made by some arbs). Just to clarify, the Malleus case was not the trigger for the note to be placed on my talk page, and I did not threaten to leave because of that (the only place I commented on my frustration regarding the case was at the clarification request, at least as far as I can remember.). My talk page note was placed on 12 July 2012, predating the arbcom case and is a result of over a couple of years of frustration, this case was just one example of the continuing malaise, but not a driver for my thoughts. Just wanted to clarify to you as you have asked a question based (in minor part) on this. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 06:31, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I apologize for my error. I mistakenly included you because I misread this comment at the clarification request. Thank you for correcting me. Cunard (talk) 04:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Questions

Hi Cunard. Just a note that I've answered most of your questions, but not all. Apologies for the slow-ness but the Thanksgiving holiday is a busy time here (lots of kids hanging around making it difficult to think!). If there is any particular unanswered question you'd like me to answer, let me know and I'll give it a shot. Otherwise, I'm done. --regentspark (comment) 16:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for answering my questions, RegentsPark. You don't need to answer any more, as you answered the ones I found most important. I liked your answers to Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012/Candidates/RegentsPark/Questions#Civility case clarification request, particularly your answer to #5. I apologize for mistakenly including you in the list of users who considered leaving Misplaced Pages because of the clarification request. Cunard (talk) 04:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Information

I noticed your username commenting at an Arbcom discussion regarding civility. An effort is underway that would likely benifit if your views were included. I hope you will append regards at: Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire Thank you for considering this request. My76Strat (talk) 11:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, My76Strat, for informing me about the questionnaire. I must decline to answer it, however, owing to lack of time. Cunard (talk) 04:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for posting those questions to the ArbCom candidates

As some feedback, I found the responses to the questions you posted to be very helpful in guiding my voting decisions. Thank you for posting them. Nick-D (talk) 03:56, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad my questions helped you determine who to support and who to oppose. Thank you for letting me know. Cunard (talk) 04:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Thomas W. Knutson

• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Thomas W. Knutson

I've just completed the AfD nomination for Thomas W. Knutson on behalf of an IP editor. As the editor who declined a CSD nomination on the article, I wanted to leave you a courtesy notice of the nomination. Monty₈₄₅ 17:10, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification, Monty. I did a cursory search for sources, which didn't turn up anything useful, so the article will likely be deleted if no else can find anything.

As I don't have the time to do an extensive search for sources and will likely be marginally active for the next month or two, I probably won't be voting at the AfD. Best, Cunard (talk) 04:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Regarding comments

Hi Cunard. I thought I'd drop you a message regarding your recent comments at my questions page. It didn't seem sensible to coment there, partially because threaded discussion is discouraged and partially because voting has now closed. I'd like to point out what a "nomination" for adminship means to me - it means that I have done a thorough review of the candidate, have discussed adminship with them and that I believe they stand a good chance of being elected. It doesn't mean I am their "friend" or even that I have interacted with them noticeably. Indeed, I've nominated 7 editors for adminship and only Ryan Vesey had I worked with significantly. The rest either came to me through the request a nomination page or I found whilst looking for potential candidates.

For QuiteUnusual, I did indeed find minor close paraphrasing issues, just as I always find sub-optimal factors in every candidate. I do not agree that I should have mentioned them, a nomination is not designed to give a full review of a candidate but instead an explanation of why I feel the candidate would make a good administrator. I know there are editors out there who review candidates based on the quality of their work and I believe their opinion on close paraphrasing is much more valuable than mine.

Regarding the "personal vendetta" comment, I have not formed a concrete opinion and would welcome your explanation as to why you took it upon yourself to act in such an excessive manner with regards to Σ. I didn't find any unpleasantness in the past between you, but I also did not find you acting in that manner to any other candidate. The opinion was my own, I have not discussed the matter with the co-nominators, nor any of the editors who !voted in the RfA. (I also forgot the "not" with respect to blocking you. A block would not have been appropriate - have updated)

Regarding my neutrality. I don't see that we're in a dispute, nor do I believe you are a disruptive editor in general. I do not have a problem with the CCI filing and I'm not sure how you can have "innocent" copyright violations, I'll look into changing that essay. I expect the reason that you were singled out was that filing the CCI had longer reaching consequences than Reaper Eternals.

Regarding Malleus Fatuorum's sanction, I will keep it in mind but I cannot guarantee anything. Attempting to change that remedy is likely to open up a can of worms which will take a long time to sort out and so I do not rate doing so as a high priority. I'd rather work on improving transparency within ArbCom, if that's even possible. Worm(talk) 10:31, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

RfA
At Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012/Candidates/Worm That Turned/Questions#Second round of questions from Cunard #3b, you wrote (my bolding and italics):

QuiteUnusual's RfA did fail due to plagiarism concerns, yet again I feel no regret for nominating him, and would do so again. I did find some minor close paraphrasing issues when I nominated him, but did not feel that they were sufficient to worry about. I discussed the matter with QU, and warned him that even the minor ones I found may well cause his RfA to fail. With hindsight, I would have been more thorough on the investigation and would have worked with him to address these concerns, but given QU's reaction to the issue (he fixed all violations before the end of the RfA and went through his entire contribution history looking for them) I still believe he will make an excellent admin.  Worm(talk)

You found plagiarism that in your own words might "cause his RfA to fail". This is not a matter of not giving a "a full review of a candidate" in your RfA nomination. It is a matter of giving an honest, open review of the candidate in your RfA nomination. It is a matter of alerting voters to the candidate's flaws that "might cause his RfA to fail" so voters can determine for themselves whether to support or oppose.

One editor has written at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive240#Possible inappropriate action during an RfA, "...Worm who usually dead on with nominations and come to trust to the point that I see no need to evaluate the candidate anymore." This blind trust in you as an RfA nominator is frequently reflected in RfA votes. These editors might not be swayed to oppose by what's disclosed in the nomination statement but others might. Other editors are impressed with your nominations though also do their own assessments. For example at Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/QuiteUnusual, an editor wrote, "Generally happy with answers to questions. The people nominating also have good reputations, and their trust in this candidate makes me feel more comfortable."

Failing to be open about a candidate's flaws that "may well cause his RfA to fail" is withholding relevant information from voters. In the QuiteUnusual RfA, you could have mentioned that you found minor close paraphrasing issues, that the candidate realized his error and corrected his mistakes, and that given the totality of his contributions, you remain confident that he will be an excellent administrator.

This openness would have allowed RfA voters to gauge the seriousness of the candidate's close paraphrasing issues and then make their own conclusions about whether to support or oppose.

I know there are editors out there who review candidates based on the quality of their work and I believe their opinion on close paraphrasing is much more valuable than mine. – you are correct that others like Moonriddengirl (talk · contribs) and Nikkimaria (talk · contribs) are more qualified to judge close paraphrasing. But you were experienced enough to recognize close paraphrasing. This is an invalid excuse to deflect criticism of your non-disclosure on the basis of your perceived lack of expertise. More experienced editors cannot offer their opinion of the close paraphrasing if they are not alerted to it.

Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Σ
The candidate admitted to vandalizing another website because he disagreed with their views. No other candidate has received such a high amount of support despite such deplorable behavior. A red flag like coordinating vandalism invites scrutiny into a candidate's Misplaced Pages contributions. I will let other users' comments at the RfA demonstrate what I think of this behavior:

Comment 1:

1) it takes a special kind of person to waste time vandalizing a website like Conservapedia (or Liberapedia for that matter) : either someone who is immature, or someone who is a zealot. No one displaying either of these traits should ever be made administrator.

2) we don't need users, nevermind administrators, who are so entrenched in a belief system that they feel it is okay to attack ideological opponents, no matter how idiotic the target is. It brings disrepute to Misplaced Pages and its contributors, it is provocative and thereby makes us a target in return, and is just a net negative all around.

3) an administrator candidate who refuses to fully acknowledge past shortcomings and instead attempts to circumvent the underlying concerns by dismissing the target and by diminishing his own actions, cannot be taken seriously. Sigma's half-assed answer to Q15 basically says "it wasn't even vandalism because Conservapedia sucks" and is a splendid demonstration of why he should not be given the tools until he addresses the issue in a much more meaningful way.

Comment 2:

Someone who destroys the creative works of others because they don't agree with them has no place as an administrator on this project. Period. Ever.

Comment 3:

The nominator is not the protagonist of Bread and Wine, behaving like a priest during the day, and painting revolutionary slogans on the walls in Fascist Italy. He vandalized a marginal encyclopedia maintained by marginalized persons, who do not need self-proclained "Wikipedians" destroying their work. What he did was bullying, picking on persons who are ridiculed or viewed with contempt by the majority of the population, to impress the other boys on IRC.

Comment 4:

Which marginalised group would be next on his radar if he was "promoted" to admin? Unpopular editors?

Comment 5:

Misplaced Pages is not an island. Behaviour on other projects is relevant: (a) insofar as it shows problematic behaviour or attitudes that lead one to doubt (for instance) a candidate's maturity and (b) where it demonstrates a real potential to embarrass the project. Admins have a more prominent role than other editors and need to comport themselves accordingly.

Comment 6:

The "appalling" aspect of this whole process is how many people are willing to give the nominee a free pass just because the website he vandalized was "conservative". This is a completely lack of critical thinking, empathy and self awareness. What if it was a website you happened to like? Would you still be whining about "what happens off-wiki doesn't matter"? Or is this just "hey this guy shares my POV so support". The thing is that one can easily imagine a situation where tables are reversed and you'll get a, say pro-creation science nominee who vandalized scientific websites and if the right majority's in place then, THEN you'll be crying about vandalism. Bottom line is that there's a principle here. Forget about whether you like Conservatopedia or not (remember your Voltaire) and !vote on the principle. Which I do think very strongly suggests opposing.

Comment 7:

Personally I think the vandalism of Conservatopedia - especially COORDINATING such vandalisms (what's next, coordinating to get users blocked?) - is a big deal. But actually what really convinced me to vote Oppose (as opposed to just staying out of it) is the lame-ass excuses given by the nominee when asked about it. The whole "it's okay to vandalize Conservatopedia because it is bad (TM)" routine. Even if it is bad (which it probably is) who the fuck gave you the right to mess with other people's websites?!? It's not like it's an attack site, merely a website representing different point of view (one which I very strongly disagree with). That kind of sentiment displays a very high level of immaturity, bad judgement and just simply "not getting it". Honestly, I cannot even trust this person to be neutral in their editing, never mind in administrative work. If could vote Oppose five times, I would. And you don't get to trivialize my, or other opposers' opinion.

The users' names are not included because these are selective quotes. At Leaky caldron's talk page, I wrote:

When I first noticed the candidacy, I was inclined to support based on the reputation of Worm That Turned (talk · contribs) and Reaper Eternal (talk · contribs). One other nominator I have not encountered before, and another I have seen exercise poor judgment in the past. However, Chaser (talk · contribs)'s question about the Conservapedia vandalism and the comments alluding to it in the "oppose" section were concerning. There was no mention of it in the nomination statements, so I believed the candidate hadn't been rigorously vetted. When I reviewed the candidate's contributions, I found a number of concerning deficiencies, so wrote a detailed oppose since by then the candidate had over 100 supports with 90%+ support.

...

It is not the candidate's fault that he was propped up as a good administrator candidate when in fact he was not. It is the fault of his nominators who either failed to vet him properly or failed to disclose the concerning issues up front.

The evidence was primarily on-wiki material because I saw the immaturity on Conservapedia reflected in the candidate's interactions on Misplaced Pages.

I could have just written "Oppose per uncommunicativeness and immaturity concerns". I would have been badgered like the rest of the opposes for diffs and evidence. So I wrote a detailed oppose with the quotes, analysis, and diffs to support my position. I expected criticism from the candidate's friends for opposing, but I did not expect threats of an RfA topic ban from two administrators.

Malleus Fatuorum's topic ban
I'd rather work on improving transparency within ArbCom, if that's even possible. – revising Malleus' Fatuorum's RfA topic ban and improving transparency within the Arbitration Committee are not mutually exclusive. I understand your reluctance at approaching this matter, but the longer you wait, the more likely this remedy will become permanent. It will set a poor precedent that expressing honest criticism at RfA will be met by very restrictive topic bans that stifle discussion.

It is better to have the restrictive topic ban revised when emotions aren't running high because Malleus opposed someone's friend. It is also imperative that the fix come from within the committee. Regular editors will be very reluctant to file another clarification or amendment request, fearing that arbitrators will attempt to site-ban Malleus again. I'd prefer to have the topic ban completely removed, but your suggestion at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012/Candidates/Worm That Turned/Questions#Civility case clarification request is a good start to improving the remedy: Malleus Fatuorum is indefinitely topic banned from Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for Adminship. Should his contributions to a specific request for adminship become disruptive, any uninvolved admin may ban him from further participation in that specific RFA. If you wish to fix this remedy, I recommend you do this by the first six–eight weeks of your term. Further delay likely will mean that the remedy will become permanent and an outspoken supporter of promoting only high quality admins will remain muzzled from expressing his honest thus deeply unpopular opinions. Cunard (talk) 15:46, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Je n'ai fait celle-ci plus longue que parce que je n'ai pas eu le loisir de la faire plus courte.
I would have written less, but I did not have the time.

We will have to agree to differ regarding RfA, I recommend and expect everyone does their own full and thorough of the candidate. I put forward the points I feel are pertinant to a candidacy and I did not feel the close paraphrasing (which I reiterate was minor) was pertinant. RfA is a terribly fickle area, where one candidate can pass where another is unsuccessful despite the issues being the same. In a similar manner, I do not generally bring up past blocks, low edit counts or arguments I may have found unless I feel they are relevant. If I nominate a person, I've been thorough, I've weighed up everything I've found and felt that they would make a good administrator. Allow me though to clarify my comment "I know there are editors out there who review candidates based on the quality of their work and I believe their opinion on close paraphrasing is much more valuable than mine." - I know that those editors will focus on possible issues with quality of the work, especially with close paraphrasing and plagiarism issues. I know they turn up to every RfA and do a thorough review of the work. I felt that the issues I had found with QU were minor enough that they would not garner opposes from those editors. I was wrong about the level of close paraphrasing, but that's how RfA works.

Regarding Σ, I'm glad to hear that there was no sign of personal vendetta - instead it was verbosity similar to the comments above. However, to those of us who spend time in RfA it was highly unusual - I cannot remember any editor who has left quite such a detailed comment on an editor. You'll note that I did not suggest a topic ban and I would have opposed one if it had been mooted seriously (I have no doubt it would not have passed at AN). I do encourage you to be more succinct at RfA in the future though, linking to quotes rather than copying them and so on. I know this can be difficult, per Pascal, but I have found that brevity is valued on Misplaced Pages and elsewhere on the internet.

Finally, regarding Malleus Fatuorum, you are right that encouraging transparency should not stop me from working at that topic ban. However, should I be elected, I am not looking to go into the role with more baggage than I can handle, and I feel that the encouragement of transparency is a very big deal - one that will have much further reaching consequences. Despite disagreeing with the decision of the committee, I do not consider changing the outcome it a priority as it will involve much boat rocking for little improvement. My priorities may change, but that is how they currently stand. Worm(talk) 10:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

It is clear that we disagree on the several issues we have discussed here. But that is fine. Uniform thinking would make this a dull place. Congratulations on your election to the Arbitration Committee. Cunard (talk) 00:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, some of the editors I have the most respect for on Misplaced Pages are the ones I've disagreed with. I'm always up for a healthy debate, feel free to message me on my talk page or email if there's anything you ever want to discuss. Thanks for the congratulations, I'm still trying to process it! Worm(talk) 09:46, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Holiday cheer

		Holiday Cheer
		Michael Q. Schmidt is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings.

Thank you, Michael! Happy holidays to you as well. Cunard (talk) 00:26, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

TY

Cunard, I've lost my taste a bit for closing RfCs for the while, but I want you to know that I appreciate your continued efforts to keep our administrative toes to the fire. I'm sure I'm not the only one. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:39, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind note, Drmies. But the real work is done by closers such as yourself and the others here. I merely list discussions that are ready for closure.

I understand why closing RfCs has grown less appealing over time. There are usually many words to read and too much time and patience wasted when the closes are reverted. Thank you for closing numerous RfCs this year, but if closing RfCs takes up too much of your time and energy, I recommend directing your attention to article work or less strenuous admin tasks in the upcoming year (like you are doing now). Your skillful ability to read and summarize RfCs will be missed, but your sanity and delightful sense of humor are more important in the long run. Best, Cunard (talk) 00:27, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Cunard, your name sounds so stern yet your words, and your delightfully red-linked user name, are a balm to my soul. I've closed a few more, including some old ones. I'm looking at an important right now on notability--so please allow me to blow off a bit of steam. GRAMMAR! I'm guessing at what some people mean. Anyways, I'd appreciate it if you could look over my recent closes--I haven't signed my "done"s because I'm trying to overcome some WP issues (some of us grow identities: I'm far from having a red-linked user page), but more importantly, I vaguely remember someone redoing my paperwork (I use 'archive top' and 'archive bottom') cause I did it wrong, and none of the ones I closed had one of those RfC templates on them. Thanks again, as always, Drmies (talk) 00:56, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy to see that none of your closes at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 6 have been reverted. Here are two edits I made so the discussion and close for Talk:Caste are easier to find. I've taken a look at the other closes and they are all fine.

Thank you so much for closing difficult discussions that other users have avoided!

Misplaced Pages talk:Notability (people)#RfC on Creative professionals looks like a difficult discussion to close. Good luck on closing that one if that's the one you've been looking at.

Red-linked user pages are my favorite. I recommend shedding the tit, boobies, and ass and getting one for yourself. ;) Cunard (talk) 01:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy too. Birds and donkeys, Cunard, that's all it is. The tufted tit-mouse is one of my favorite birds, by the way; I used to see them all the time from my kitchen window in Tuscaloose. No, the tern is my favorite, hovering over the water of the canal I grew up on. Listen, maybe you feel like closing something? There's consensus on ANI on two threads: "GarnetAndBlack, incivility etc." and "Repeated editing of articles". Wanna try your hand at it? Happy days, Drmies (talk) 15:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Any discussion with "incivility" in its title is something I'm inclined to avoid. I begin my day with ◔◡◔. Then, I ◔o◔ when I happen upon such discussions. But I've listed Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive781#GarnetAndBlack: Incivility, gaming the system, ownership, bad faith bias in edits, retaliatory editing at WP:ANRFC for someone more patient than I to read, analyze, and close. What's my excuse for not closing it? I'm not a powerful, well-paid admin like you. I'm a worthless red-linked user and thus a probable vandal/troll/sockpuppet. Cunard (talk) 02:25, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• Hey Cunard, fat cat high-paid admin here again. I have a question for you. I ran into Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Christianity922/Survivor: Samoa 2-Heroes vs. Villains Test and was wondering if you still have some zeal left to help clean up user space. This user has a ton of those pages. Do you mind having a look to see if those (all, or some) also qualify for deletion, and whether you think some mass nomination would be a good idea? I don't have much experience with that. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:12, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
• Incidentally, they recreated that page again. This indicates a waste of server space to me. Drmies (talk) 03:13, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

• I'm surprised that an all-powerful, high-earning admin would need the help of a serf, but things never surprise me anymore. ;)

  These pages all violate WP:NOTWEBHOST and your suggestion of a mass nomination is sound. I've nominated them all for deletion at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Christianity922's pages. Cunard (talk) 04:24, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

To Whom It May Concern

Long time no see. Have you considered nominating To Whom It May Concern: Ka Shen's Journey for GA? I think it has a fighting chance of passing as is. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:08, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Crisco, it's great to hear from you again. I hadn't thought of nominating To Whom It May Concern: Ka Shen's Journey for GA. Although I agree with you that it might be a good candidate, I will be marginally active for the next few months. So I will hold off on considering a GA nomination until I have the time to read the article again and address any concerns raised by the GA reviewer. Cunard (talk) 04:30, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

You have been mentioned at ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. StAnselm (talk) 00:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9 (2nd nomination)

I'm not ignoring your question/request. Which is not to say I know what I want to do about it either. WilyD 09:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Zonnon

Hi! I found four independent reliable source references about Zonnon so I re-established the article WhisperToMe (talk) 21:00, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Insight Meditation Society

Dear Cunard,

In your September 29, 2009 edit of the Insight Meditation Society, you added the text "formerly 'Insight Meditation Center'" and cited a publication by Jack Maguire. I have worked at IMS for a little over 7 years now and have a good relationship with its founders. I also have seen some of the original documents of the incorporation. In speaking with them and reviewing the founding documents I have evidence to dispute your edit. I wanted to let you know that the organization was never the Insight Meditation Center. Would you like to find another way to use the cited work in the article while removing the inaccuracy?

Best, Charlie Stevenson IT Manager Insight Meditation Society

Corezion (talk) 15:36, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Charlie. I have replied at Talk:Insight Meditation Society#Disputed former name removed. Cunard (talk) 09:28, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Requests for closure

Hi Cunard, just a note about posting requests for closure. Closing discussions is a thankless task that can be very time-consuming, much more than it looks. For those reasons we have a shortage of people willing to do it regularly. It therefore makes sense only to post requests where the discussion needs uninvolved closure, and where it's an ongoing issue. The Natalie Tran request, for example, was about a self-published source in a BLP (which is not allowed, per WP:BLPSPS), it had been removed around six weeks ago, there was no consensus to restore it, and the bot had removed the tag, so the initiator of the discussion closed it as no consensus. In a case like that, there's no need to ask anyone else to intervene (that I can see anyway).

It's usually best to let the people involved decide whether they need to ask someone else to close it. Otherwise the board is filled up with requests that don't need closure, and the ones that do may get overlooked. SlimVirgin 20:09, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi SlimVirgin. Thank you for your frequent thoughtful closes at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure.

I list discussions at ANRFC because I believe a close would improve the encyclopedia by for example deciding an important content or policy issue or by ending or preventing edit wars.

The RfC initiator found an issue important enough to open an RfC, but may be unaware that they can ask for a close at ANRFC or may have forgotten to list the discussion there. I list at ANRFC RfCs that would benefit from a close.

For example, at this close request about Mariah Carey's birth year, I listed several reasons for my posting that request. One reason was:

It is best to formally close this discussion to establish a consensus version has been reached to prevent future edit wars that may occur. A formally closed discussion allows editors to point to the concise close rather than the lengthy discussion to show future editors what the consensus is. A formal close from an uninvolved editor cannot be dismissed as easily as an unclosed, lengthy discussion.

The recent page history of Mariah Carey shows that several editors repeatedly reversed the consensus version implemented by Moxy (example), who was involved in the discussion. The close by Armbrust (talk · contribs) now allows editors who are enforcing the consensus to point to the closing statement by an uninvolved editor if they are accused of edit warring.

The Natalie Tran request—Chris troutman wrote at ANRFC (my bolding):

I apologize if I've violated common practices about RfCs. Legobot closed the discussion after 30 days although editor responses dropped off much earlier. I then marked it closed with no consensus since I felt that extending the RfC would not likely result in achieving clear consensus and I couldn't fairly assess in my own favor. I still desire to have a real resolution to the problem (can we or can we not use Vidstatsx statistics) but not enough editors seem to want to help provide an answer. As I mentioned on Talk:Natalie Tran, this question had been initially raised at WP:RSN in July 2012 to no avail. Certainly any administrator could overrule me, re-open the discussion, etc. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:20, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I listed the discussion for closure because of the BLP considerations. VidStatsX is used in several BLPs and article drafts. A close saying that the source should not be used in BLPs per BLPSPS would inform the discussion's participants to avoid using the source in BLPs. The source was also discussed in July 2012 at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 128#Vidstatsx, which the RfC initiator wrote "received little input". That RSN thread was caused by the lengthy discussion about the source at Talk:Dave Days#Top 50 subscribed. Discussion about the appropriateness of using VidStatsX will likely come up again in the future, so a close explaining why using it violates WP:BLPSPS would be helpful in guiding the direction of those discussions.

I've reviewed the Natalie Tran RfC myself so I could experience the process that closers such as yourself go through. Here is my draft closing statement:

The consensus is that VidStatsX should not be used in this biography of a living person because it is a self-published source. Although the data published by VidStatsX was used by reliable sources such as Forbes (link) and The Washington Post (link), its usage on Misplaced Pages would violate the policy WP:BLPSPS, which says, "Never use self-published sources ... as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject".

117Avenue (talk · contribs)'s removal of the content sourced to VidStatsX on the basis of WP:BLPREMOVE is upheld.

I also took into consideration the discussion at Talk:Dave Days#Top 50 subscribed and Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 128#Vidstatsx about the source.

http://vidstatsx.com/tos says: "The owner of this site disclaims any and all liability that may result from your use of the site. Again, this site, the data, access to it, etc. etc. are provided without guarantee or warranty of accuracy or fitness for any purpose... use it at your risk!" This is further evidence that VidStatsX does not pass the policies Misplaced Pages:Verifiability and Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons.

Cunard (talk) 08:50, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I will not close the discussion, however, because it would require reverting ‎Chris troutman (talk · contribs)'s close, a controversial action which I will not unilaterally do. I will instead add it as a post-close comment, so that an administrator or more experienced closer can take it into consideration when s/he recloses the RfC.

It is time-consuming to read the discussion and write a precise closing statement, so I am very grateful to closers such as yourself who take the time to do so on a regular basis.

I agree that discussions should not be indiscriminately listed at ANRFC. I carefully consider each close request I list at the board.

Thank you for raising your concerns with me, and feel free to let me know if you have any concerns in the future about my close requests. Cunard (talk) 08:50, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Cunard, you could always close discussions yourself when you find them. Most discussions don't need admin closure. SlimVirgin 21:10, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi SlimVirgin. I prefer to list discussions that would benefit from closure rather than close them myself. RfC closes frequently need clarification, and I would not be able to provide timely responses to them. Prolific closer I JethroBT (talk · contribs) wrote:

I actually take out a pen and paper and write down notes and do at least two reads of an RfC (unless it's a case of WP:SNOW). On the first pass, I write out summaries of people's arguments, and the second pass, I check them in relation to other arguments and also note policies that are relevant or have been explicitly discussed. I actually find the whole process kind of fun, in part because I like the challenge of having to help resolve legitimate, good-faith conflicts where matters might seem unresolvable. To be fair, sometimes situations cannot be resolved (which is why I'm sure glad no consensus is a valid close). But it does require a bit of time for reading, writing, and thinking. Some have said that closing RfCs is a thankless task, but I actually get thanked much more often than I expected for making closes, even the easy ones. But I get it with the "issues I care about are hard to summarize" in a balanced way. I tend to know when that's the case for me and I either avoid or participate in those discussions instead. Anyway, thanks for dropping a note my way, I really appreciate it. I, JethroBT 15:06, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I am unable to spend the time I JethroBT does to write succinct, thoughtful assessments of consensus. A patient, compassionate, and careful, closer, I JethroBt frequently receives requests for clarifications or reviews of his closures.

See the request for clarification at Roundup closure for his close of Talk:Roundup (herbicide)#RfC: Un-merge from Glyphosate?, the request for reconsideration of his close at Closing Hurricane Sandy debate for his close of Talk:Hurricane Sandy#"Superstorm Sandy" in first sentence as alternate title? (which he later reversed to allow more users to weigh in), and a request for clarification at Rand edit request comment for a followup comment he made after his close of Talk:Ayn Rand#Request for comment: Qualifying "philosopher" in the lead sentence. Cunard (talk) 09:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Little Red Wagon

On 4 October 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Little Red Wagon, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Little Red Wagon Foundation founder Zach Bonner's story was selected from among a pool of 6,000 candidates and made into the 2012 docudrama Little Red Wagon? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Little Red Wagon. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 16:02, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Misplaced Pages Library Newsletter