Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:01, 2 October 2012

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

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

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

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

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

Template:Active editnotice

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

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

Archives

Index no archives yet (create)

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

• WP:CR
• WP:RFCL
• WP:ANRFC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other areas tracking old discussions

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

Administrative discussions

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

(Initiated 36 days ago on 13 December 2024) challenge of close at AN was archived nableezy - 05:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 34 days ago on 15 December 2024) voorts (talk/contributions) 00:55, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

This could really use some attention—it's been over a month. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:08, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

 Closed by editor Beeblebrox. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.  05:05, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Requests for comment

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

(Initiated 103 days ago on 7 October 2024) Tough one, died down, will expire tomorrow. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 83 days ago on 28 October 2024) Participation/discussion has mostly stopped & is unlikely to pick back up again. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

(Initiated 73 days ago on 6 November 2024) RfC expired on 6 December 2024 . No new comments in over a week. Bogazicili (talk) 15:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Australia#RFC: Should the article state that Indigenous Australians were victims of genocide?

(Initiated 72 days ago on 8 November 2024), RFC expired weeks ago. GoodDay (talk) 21:33, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Israel#RfC

(Initiated 57 days ago on 22 November 2024) Legobot has removed the RFC notice. Can we please get an interdependent close. TarnishedPath 23:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Discussion has slowed on the RFC. TarnishedPath 07:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Thomas Sewell (neo-Nazi)#RfC on the Inclusion of Guard Actions and Court Findings on Motivations

(Initiated 33 days ago on 17 December 2024) Legobot has removed the RFC notice and the last comment was a few days ago. Can we get an independent close please. TarnishedPath 22:50, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

•  Done. Yes you can.—S Marshall T/C 10:28, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

  @S Marshall Thank you. TarnishedPath 10:38, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Estado Novo (Portugal)#RFC Should the Estado Novo be considered fascist?

(Initiated 11 days ago on 8 January 2025) RfC opened last month, and was re-opened last week, but hasn't received further discussion. Outcome clear and unlikely to change if it were to run the full 30 days. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 00:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Does this need a close? Aaron Liu (talk) 02:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I would have just closed it myself, but I don't exactly feel comfortable doing so since I've responded and have a bias about how it should close. Not opposed to just letting it expire, though. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 23:23, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I think it should just be left to expire. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment#Closing the discussion. The outcome is obvious and you can let it lie unclosed.—S Marshall T/C 00:01, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

 Not done for reasons given above. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.  04:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Deletion discussions

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 18#Category:Belarusian saints

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

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 6#Category:Misplaced Pages oversighters

(Initiated 30 days ago on 20 December 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 18 days ago on 31 December 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

 Closed by editor Xplicit. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.  16:39, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 18 days ago on 1 January 2025) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

 Closed by editor Xplicit. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.  16:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 6#Redundant WPANIMATION categories

(Initiated 13 days ago on 6 January 2025) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Arab migrations to the Levant#Merger Proposal

(Initiated 116 days ago on 25 September 2024) Open for a while, requesting uninvolved closure. Andre🚐 22:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Winter fuel payment abolition backlash#Merge proposal

(Initiated 82 days ago on 29 October 2024) There are voices on both sides (ie it is not uncontroversial) so a non-involved editor is needed to evaluate consensus and close this. Thanks. PamD 09:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Israel–Hamas war#Survey

(Initiated 73 days ago on 7 November 2024) Looking for uninvolved close in CTOP please, only a few !votes in past month. I realise this doesn't require closing, but it is preferred in such case due to controversial nature of topic. CNC (talk) 10:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

Talk:Selected Ambient Works Volume II#Proposed merge of Stone in Focus into Selected Ambient Works Volume II

(Initiated 13 days ago on 6 January 2025) Seeking uninvolved closure; proposal is blocking GA closure czar 11:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump#Proposal to supersede consensus #50

(Initiated 8 days ago on 10 January 2025) Seeking uninvolved closure; its degenerated into silly sniping and has clearly run its course. Slatersteven (talk) 16:46, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

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

fix article history

Could someone fix the article history of Miju language? The histories of the article and a redirect have been merged, so that moves appear to be blanking, etc. For example, these deletions never happened, nor did these restorations. The problem is (Deletion log) 23:49 restored page Miju language ‎(5 revisions restored).

Thanks — kwami (talk) 08:07, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm starting on it. Please, nobody else do anything until I leave a note saying that I'm finished or that I'm stuck and need help. Nyttend (talk) 03:35, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I think I'm done. The article itself is at Miju language, and the history of the redirect is at Talk:Miju language/old history. Please look it over to see that I did what I should have; a consultation of the deletion log for Miju language will show you why I'm not confident that I did the right thing. Nyttend (talk) 03:43, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing another history merge. I've started a discussion on whether attribution in the redirect's history is required at WT:Copying within Misplaced Pages#Creativity of page names. Flatscan (talk) 04:09, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I have another request for a undoing a histmerge: Three-Lobed Burning Eye. The two articles are about one form of H. P. Lovecraft's Nyarlathotep and a magazine named after it. The monster article was AfD'd and redirected to the magazine. The history merge created nonsensical diffs (e.g., 1, 2) between revisions from the separate pages. I asked the admin to separate the monster revisions to Three-Lobed Burning Eye (monster), but he has not done so.

• 46 revisions total, 30 revisions related to disambiguation page and monster
• 26 revisions for disambiguation page and monster. The earlier revisions are a disambiguation page containing sections on the monster and the magazine, but they are all primarily about the monster.
• 13 for magazine
• 7 interleaved revisions, 4 monster (2,000 bytes and 48-byte redirect) and 3 magazine (>3,000 bytes)
  • 2 magazine: Jclemens merged a sentence, and I added attribution with a dummy edit. 48 revisions total. This diff should cover any later edits. Flatscan (talk) 04:15, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks in advance. Flatscan (talk) 04:15, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

That's how a histmerge actually works, Flatscan. I have yet to see you articulate any policy-based reason for undoing the histmerge, else I would have done it myself. Jclemens (talk) 04:48, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I linked to WP:How to fix cut-and-paste moves and WP:Merge and delete#History fixing in the body and edit summary of my opening comment to you. A troublesome case explains why overlapping histories should not be histmerged. A more complex case describes two topics in one history. Flatscan (talk) 04:15, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Why was that history-merged in the first place? The content of the pages is totally different, which means a histmerge only breaks the article history. The correct way to handle this would have been to move the redirect to a disambiguated title (say, Three-Lobed Burning Eye (creature)), to make way for the move of the magazine article to Three-Lobed Burning Eye. That would have left the histories of both pages intact while allowing the magazine article to have an undisambiguated title. Jafeluv (talk) 06:24, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Because the content was merged into one article, and there was no foreseeable need to maintain separate articles, per the AfD discussion. I merged everything relevant into one article, rather than maintaining separate redirects for content which would be merged into that article, and chose histmerge to maintain author attribution. Nothing in the history is "broken", just interleaved. Jclemens (talk) 06:46, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Umm, I don't think we're supposed to merge histories of unrelated pages when doing text merges. The procedure is to note the merge in edit summaries and to apply {{R from merge}} to the remaining redirect as a notification that it shouldn't be deleted. There are also talk page templates {{merged-to}} and {{merged-from}} to indicate where the history can be found. History-merging unrelated pages makes the article history difficult to follow (you can't compare successive versions to see what changes have been made) and it's tedious to undo since you have to go revision by revision and figure out which page that revision is from. (Some of this is explained at WP:HISTMERGE#Parallel versions.) It's good that you're making sure author attribution is preserved, but in this case I think it should not have been done by history-merging the pages. Jafeluv (talk) 07:08, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

For anyone unfamiliar, {{Copied}} is the preferred template, but it is more complex. User:Asfuller was the primary contributor to both articles, and the magazine article looked completely rewritten. There was no attribution dependency until Jclemens merged a sentence after my request here. Flatscan (talk) 04:15, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Is anyone willing to fulfill this request? I've done part of the work by sorting the revisions into two sets. Jclemens has edited after his last response two days ago, but he has not replied since. Flatscan (talk) 04:18, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

TeeTylerToe unblock request

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

It's quite clear that the community is not up to unblocking this editor at this time. The community points to not acknowledging the reason for his block and a few other things as the reason for decline. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 21:28, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• TeeTylerToe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user's request remains unanswered for quite a time, which is understandable - in such situation an unblock should be made per consensus, so no admin is comfortable about reviewing singlehandedly. Therefore I'm starting a discussion here. Note: I have no opinion regarding this unblock request myself. Max Semenik (talk) 10:56, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I was the blocking admin here, and this appeal slipped through my radar (though Foxj (talk · contribs) did consult me about re-enabling talk page access so that the editor could ask to be unblocked). Thanks very much to Max for following up on this. I think that we need assurances from the editor that they'll edit productively, and have posted some questions on their talk page in regards to this; his or her editing prior to the block was highly disruptive. Nick-D (talk) 11:03, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

• I've looked at this a couple of times, but I didn't feel up to tackling it. I have to say I see a very tendentious approach to editing there, and I'm not entirely convinced that there's a solid commitment to respecting consensus and to following a much more collegial approach. It's good to see an agreement to stop the personal attacks, and good to see an agreement to follow procedures better in the previous unblock request - but it does concern me that in each case it took so long and so much hammering by others to get that far. And edit-warring so fiercely at DRN, of all places, showed staggeringly bad judgment - can we be confident that a lack of such judgment can and has been improved? OK, that's my fears, but I think I could cautiously support an unblock with a 1RR restriction, and an understanding that any repeat of the same behavior will lead straight back to a fresh block. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:24, 27 September 2012 (UTC) (Withdrawn - see below) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 03:04, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree, but I think that a commitment to stay away from the Sikorsky S-76 article is also needed given that this was the crux of the problems. Nick-D (talk) 11:37, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Yes, I think we should require a voluntary topic ban from that article too. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:58, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
      • Require a voluntary topic ban? --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:05, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
        • Well, that he agrees not to edit it - whatever you call it -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:10, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
          • Agreement under pressure isn't real agreement; we can impose a topic ban, of course, but we mustn't call it voluntary. Nyttend (talk) 16:41, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
            • Yep, sorry, I really just meant "by agreement" - as opposed to a community !vote topic ban -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 02:59, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
• I've actually been fairly impressed by the patience TTT has shown lately. He's been waiting for someone to handle his unblock requests (on UTRS and on-wiki) for an annoyingly long time, but he's managed to not fly off the handle about it (I've spoken to him/seen him spoken to about it on IRC about it a few times, and while it's clear he's frustrated, he's always asked about it very politely, etc). That strikes me as a good sign that he's perhaps turned a corner as far as impulsivity. If TTT is willing to commit to some stricter behavioral guidelines (perhaps 1RR, as Boing suggests, or a topic ban?), I'm ok with giving him another chance here. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:25, 27 September 2012 (UTC) Based on the replies TTT has offered to this thread, it appears I was wrong about his progressing away from the issues that caused the block.Oppose unblock at this time. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:30, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

TTT has asked that an editor cross-post the following message from his or her talk page. I'll comment at the end of it: Nick-D (talk) 22:30, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

"I have to say I see a very tendentious approach to editing there, and I'm not entirely convinced that there's a solid commitment to respecting consensus and to following a much more collegial approach. It's good to see an agreement to stop the personal attacks, and good to see an agreement to follow procedures better in the previous unblock request - but it does concern me that in each case it took so long and so much hammering by others to get that far. And edit-warring so fiercely at DRN, of all places, showed staggeringly bad judgment - can we be confident that a lack of such judgment can and has been improved? OK, that's my fears, but I think I could cautiously support an unblock with a 1RR restriction, and an understanding that any repeat of the same behavior will lead straight back to a fresh block." Boing! said Zebedee

The tendentious editing page describes tendentious editing as biased or a non NPOV. A reliable source stated that the S-76 shares the simplified transmission of the S-70. I argued that as this was supported by consensus and there is no source that I know of, or that has since been brought to light that contradicts this. How was that not neutral?

As for the consensus, see above. There seem to be many misapprehensions about wikipedia policy on consensus. It's not a show of hands the way many people believe. Many people involved in this dispute believed that there was one right side, and one wrong side, and that was probably the driving force behind the unbelievable OR that was used to try to justify the removal of properly referenced edits. That is not what consensus on wikipedia is.

Let's say there were properly referenced dissent to the statement that the S-76 shares the simplified transmission of the S-70. A proper consensus would be to present both ideas, and provide the appropriate references for each.

As for the collegial approach, I was routinely threatened, and at one point I was told that if I wanted to have an opinion I should create a subreddit on reddit where I could be the mod and ban anyone I wanted indefinitely that disagreed with me. I admit I responded to that editor in kind and told them they were condescending. Other than that I was fairly collegial, and I would ask that you provide references to this behavior you call non-collegial.

The entire unblock system is rather backwards. It first requires a mea culpa before you have a chance to plead your innocence. While that basically gives admins carte blanch, it puts people who have been blocked at an obvious disadvantage.

"it took so long and so much hammering by others". I offered the restrictions on my behavior on july 30. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by that.

Also could you tell me exactly how I was "fierce" in my edits to the DRN? I've been told that Guy Macon has acknowledged that he was involved in the dispute (has anyone told Nick-D?). He unilaterally closed the dispute on the DRN that he was involved in before it had been opened or been commented on by any neutral third party. I restored the dispute to the DRN, which was then reverted by Steven Zhang. I discussed it collegially with Steven Zhang, and Steven Zhang made noises about how an RFC might work, and that there are other avenues of dispute resolution then quickly closed the discussion without any definitive response. Seeing no harm in a new dispute being listed on the DRN I again restored it when Guy Macon started his reverts without any discussion or participation.

What did I do that was fierce?

What did I do that was so unique in it's poor judgement? Did I revert repeatedly without discussion?TeeTylerToe (talk) 22:09, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm interpreting this as a rejection of the notion of avoiding the S-76 helicopter article, and tends to imply that if unblocked TTT would continue this dispute. I note that the crux of the issue was that he or she didn't provide sources to support the material they wanted to add to the article, despite requests that they do so. TTT has also resumed their attacks on Guy in the final paragraph - they seem to not be able to acce

• Well, what I now see (based on his own post) is a lack of understanding that his behaviour was inappropriate, as would be required by WP:GAB. Sorry - no thanks. Not that I want you to beg for forgiveness, but at least understand that your behaviour cannot recur. Let's see WP:OFFER - including positive editing on another project, minimum 6 months of great, non-problematic editing, then a return with a parole dangerouspanda 22:55, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
• After that reply, continuing the content dispute that started all this, and again not dropping the DRN thing, I have to withdraw my support for unblock at this time - I'd suggest some time away, as per WP:OFFER -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 03:04, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

TTT has also asked that the following be posted here. Nick-D (talk) 08:23, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

And you responded. What personal attacks did I make against Guy Macon and where? The topic was discussed at great length over weeks. Can you point out any point where the question was that I couldn't source the statement that the S-76 shares the simplified transmission of the S-70? I remember people saying that the 20,000 RPM turbines were reduced to 200RPM in a single transmission stage, that people brought up statements that the S-76 employs a planetary transmission, which didn't contradict the original statement, and several other opinions were aired against the referenced statement, but where was the question raised that I did not support my statement? It was really quite an involved, long, drawn out dispute, so I'm sure it played a massive massive role but I can't find it looking back now.

What makes you think I would edit disruptively?

Again, please someone post this in the discussion.TeeTylerToe (talk) 22:52, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Responding to dangerouspanda, I understand that editors can't insult one another, and that I shouldn't have reverted on the DRN. I don't see what citing GAB has to do with anything. What did I say that makes you think that I would repeat the things that I was blocked for?TeeTylerToe (talk) 23:27, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Thinking about it more, and all the possible arguments you could be making but didn't because I suppose you didn't feel the need to, it occurred to me that you could think that I really was editing tendentiously, that's why I was blocked for edit warring for a week in july, and that that's why... well, that's one of the arguments you decided not to make. I suppose you didn't make the argument that I was subject to a one week block in july because I reverted edits restoring a new dispute to the drn about an article where you didn't make the argument that I could be seen to have been repeating the same argument without convincing people.

There are times when no argument you can make will convince other people. Did I consider that my argument could be flawed? Yes. Did I blindly refute other parties that contradicted my edits? No. At each point when another editor brought OR to the table trying to debunk the claim made by the reference I didn't ignore their dissent. That's why I know that modern technology does not have a practical single stage transmission that reduces a 3,000shp 20,000 RPM input to a 200RPM output, and why I know that early sikorsky transmissions had two planetary stages. The simpler transmission of the S-70 probably reduced the number of planetary stages from 2 to 1. I made an honest effort to make the best argument that I could, but neither side would compromise which is why I was pursuing the dispute resolution process.

Is the threat you feel but didn't voice that I could pursue dispute resolution through probably RFC as DRN seems to have given up?TeeTylerToe (talk) 01:36, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

• Based on the above, oppose an unblock. Still a lot of confrontational tendencies. Max Semenik (talk) 09:38, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, I agree with Max and in opposing any unblock of TTT until he owns up to his own wrongdoing and apologise to the community for it with a further assurance from TTT that this sort of unacceptable behaviour will not happen again in future. Also, TTT's way of small talk got me uneasy all over again, are Giant pandas really being deemed as dangerous or endangered? Which is which? And seeing that he has not dropped the same battleground mentality that had gotten him to where he is in the very first place, I just wish to state that I have no confidence whatsoever even if a 1RR was imposed, some people are just not capable (or is it a competency issue?) of handling such restrictions. --Dave 03:58, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

TTT has also asked that the following message be posted here: Nick-D (talk) 23:28, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

The 1 week block that expired august 4th was not for disruptive editing on the s-76 page. It was for restoring a dispute on the DRN. Many of the people opposing my unblock request seem to be doing it both because I feel that there are still problems with the S-76 article.

First, last I checked the article about a month ago, I had two problems with it. One, is that the use of the term "engineering technologies" is unencyclopedic weasel wording. Second, it doesn't reflect the content of the references referenced in the article.

Now. It's my understanding that IF someone had a problem with my editing on that article it would be that I was either editing the article in a disruptive way, or that I was proceeding in the dispute resolution process in a disruptive way.

My intention is to constructively pursue the dispute resolution process. What problem is there with that? On July 30 I volunteered reasonable restrictions that would prevent my past errors.

What concerns do people have about me pursuing the dispute resolution process on the S-76 article? Are you concerned that I would make personal attacks? Are you concerned that I would edit war? Are you concerned that I would be otherwise disruptive? What is the concern?

What I don't understand is that people seem to have a problem that my opinion about the fact hasn't changed because so far nobody has made a compelling argument to bring that fact into question, but people seem to be bothered that I still hold that opinion. I suppose the concern is that I still intend to advocate that opinion on wikipedia, but really, what problem do you have with me saying that I would submit the article for RFC? How is that disruptive?TeeTylerToe (talk) 17:21, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

TTT has asked for another extended comment to be posted here. To avoid this thread becoming too long, I will link to it instead: User talk:TeeTylerToe#Further request to post comments to WP:AN thread. JohnCD (talk) 08:45, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• Having read through the whole saga, oppose unblock and suggest WP:STANDARD OFFER. JohnCD (talk) 08:55, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

There appears to be consensus to not unblock. Can someone please decline the request on TTT's talk page? Nick-D (talk) 09:53, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012 to start on 1 October

Just to let everyone know that the (perennial) RfC for the 2012 ArbCom Elections is planned to start on 1 October, lasting for 30 days. While many things have already been decided in the past, other issues still need to be discussed and consensus re-established, while there are also a couple of other new issues that came up from last year's election that need to be addressed to ensure a smooth and fair election.

The RfC will be at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012 (yes, as of this posting, it is a redlink, but it will shortly not be). Regards, --MuZemike 19:02, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

• The RFC is now live. Monty₈₄₅ 03:37, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Is this now considered acceptable from an administrator?

This discussion has degenerated into vitriol and uselessness; no further admin action is going to be taken. Bring it to Arbcom or step outside and get a breath of fresh air. Ed  01:20, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

From an email I recently received from an administrator, who may or may not choose to identify himself: "You know what, fuck you. You're a petulant, narcissistic piece of shit."

Surely the time has come when administrators ought at least to be held to the same standards of behaviour as those they police so aggressively? How many other editors are receiving similarly abusive emails from administrators I wonder? Malleus Fatuorum 21:17, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

That should be a blockable offense. Ryan Vesey 21:23, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Speaking as one who was once blocked for using the word "sycophantic", it would be hard to disagree. But this is an administrator we're discussing here, different rules apply. Malleus Fatuorum 21:27, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Now, was this just a single message? Or part of a larger back-and-forth conversation? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:25, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I didn't consider that. My comment above was based on the assumption that the email was either out of the blue or was a single message stemming from an on-wiki discussion. I also assumed that the quoted text was the entire content of the message. The "blockable" aspect might change depending on the additional information. Ryan Vesey 21:29, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

The quoted text was indeed the entire content of the message. Malleus Fatuorum 21:32, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

There was no "back-and-forth conversation", and it wasn't a single message. Malleus Fatuorum 21:30, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, what was the context of the message, then? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:33, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll answer your question after you tell me why that matters. Malleus Fatuorum 21:36, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

If it doesn't matter what you said to him, then it doesn't matter what he said to you. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:37, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In my experience, a construction involving "you know what?" is generally used when a party in a disagreement has become extremely frustrated and at the end of their rope. I am curious as to what would have prompted such an outburst. And given your well-known antagonism to those of the sysop persuasion, I think context is even more important. The remark taken alone is certainly unacceptable, but the conduct of both parties in a disagreement can and should come under examination. One remark out of its relevant context obfuscates the full story. Bretonbanquet sums it up nicely. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:42, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

• Since you ask this question on this page, with this level of detail, I assume you're looking for opinions rather than action. That's obviously not acceptable, regardless of the circumstances, but those circumstances matter tremendously in whether this is a case of (a) Admin X needs to chill out, (b) Admin X needs to take a wikibreak, (c) Admin X needs to be aware that if they do it again they'll probably be desysopped, (d) Admin X needs to resign the tools or they'll have them taken away, or (e) Admin X is desysopped now and blocked. It's impossible to know which of those responses is appropriate without knowing more than you can divulge on-wiki. If I'm wrong and you actually want some action, you should forward the entire email chain to ArbCom. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:43, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

  I see. So it's now considered perfectly acceptable for administrators to send abusive emails to non-administrators. Malleus Fatuorum 22:12, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

That would be a spectacularly wrong way to read my comment. If you're in the mood to argue, find someone else. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:16, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

• Am I correct in assuming you notified them via email of this thread? Beeblebrox (talk) 21:45, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

  Why would I notify Mark of this thread? I never mentioned him. Malleus Fatuorum 22:30, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Also what Floq said. I know Mal and ArbCom have a very loving relationship and all, but this is up their alley. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:47, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, Misplaced Pages e-mail should be abolished. It's a place for 'team editing' co-ordination. GoodDay (talk) 21:48, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

• Fwiw, I'm the one who sent Malleus that e-mail. He had called me "fucking pissy" a few days before, and I was offended and lost my temper. Regardless of what he has said or done, my comments were grossly uncalled for, and I'm ashamed of myself for making them. I did not live up to the standard that I have always tried to hold others to, and I deeply regret that. If the community believes that I should be sanctioned for this, I will accept the chosen action without complaint. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:55, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Well Malleus, what do you think? Beeblebrox (talk) 21:59, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I think that Mark should come entirely clean and admit to his second email to me, which in its way was hardly any better. But I'm simply looking for a little bit of honesty, and a clear understanding that, whatever the perceived provocation, administrators have no special rights to send abusive emails without being sanctioned, and if Mark persists then he will be sanctioned. Which seems to be missing here in the "Oh, it's Malleus, must be his fault" attitude I see here. Malleus Fatuorum 22:22, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

You have my permission to post any of my e-mails publicly. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:29, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Post them yourself. Malleus Fatuorum 22:31, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

What I said in the second e-mail was "Apologies for my e-mail last night, I wish I hadn't lost my temper. I'll resolve to merely avoid people that irritate me in the future." Mark Arsten (talk) 22:32, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

• I think Mark should voluntarily give up his mop for three months, but on the other hand, I think Malleus should be blocked for two weeks for calling Mark a "fucking pussy". And maybe throw in an interaction ban between the two pbp 22:08, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I realize this is AN, but could we try to pay closer attention before commenting? He didn't call Mark a pussy, he said one of Mark's actions was pissy. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:11, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Nobody should be sanctioned, report should be closed. GoodDay (talk) 22:14, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I suppose it had to happen eventually - I finally agree with GoodDay on something. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:15, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, close it, let Mark get away with it. Malleus Fatuorum 22:24, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what should be done, but I think some type of action needs to be taken. The action would have been inappropriate even on wiki. To hide that action behind an abusive email is worse. I like Mark, but allowing an action like this without consequence opens the door to similar actions, not by Mark because I don't believe he will do so again, but by others. Ryan Vesey 22:31, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

He admits to saying it and that he shouldn't have. It wasn't on-wiki...I would say if you want to pursue this, MF, arbcom would be the way to go. Rjd0060 (talk) 22:36, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Grow a thicker skin, Malleus. You clearly provoked him, most likely for the purposes of immediately running to WP:ANI and making a scene exactly like this. If anything you're the one that needs to be sanctioned here, preferably with a long, long block given your record. Jtrainor (talk) 23:18, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

It's nothing to do with the thickness of my skin, but about how many others have been similarly abused by administrators, and their complaints similarly dismissed? Malleus Fatuorum 23:25, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

(e/c) I wonder if it's as long as the list of people who've been abused by you, MF. You come here and moan about someone calling you names, and then you call someone an arsehole in your edit summary - and you expect people to take you seriously. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:33, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Malleus blocked

I have blocked Malleus for one week for this edit summary. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:31, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

While I have less tolerance for abusive language on Misplaced Pages than I used to, Malleus was clearly provoked. If you're going to start blocking, there should be blocks all around, including Jtrainor for going out of his way to provoke Malleus. Ryan Vesey 23:37, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

In addition, the action that led to the block occurred in a forum where (at least in this instance) unilateral action is out of line. If you felt this block was necessary, you should have discussed it. Sometimes we need to use some common sense and make sure our actions are appropriate to the situation. Ryan Vesey 23:42, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)VERY bad block People in primary school playgrounds go unpunished for MUCH worse than that! Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 23:39, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

• And once again, Misplaced Pages demonstrates that it is completely dysfunctional. Poorly thought out email, poorly thought out report to AN, poorly thought out intentional trolling comment by Jtrainor, poorly thought out response by Malleus, and poorly thought out block. Congratulations, everyone, on the trifecta. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:44, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

This looks like a decent block to me. Malleus should have been blocked for his abusive comment on Mark's talk page which started this off. For him to turn around and complain about getting the same back from Mark is pretty silly (especially as this is entirely out of character for Mark, while Malleus' post was entirely in-character). The fact that he continued to make rude remarks here also justifies a block. Nick-D (talk) 23:45, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

• Have to agree. Obviously the admin that didn't get blocked took the comment to an email, because if he said it on Wiki, he knew it would cause an immediate.... something. I kind of think that Bongwarrior blocking a guy in an admin forum without asking, "hey should I block this guy?" warrants a block on Bongwarrior for letting his emotions take over. You guys have GOT to apply the same standards to admins as you do other editors or you will just get continually seen as bad actors in Misplaced Pages despite your good actions. -- Avanu (talk) 23:47, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

"Arse" is a very mild form of "ass", it also sounds more clever with a British accent. Let's just skip to the unblock now and get this over with, we all know its gonna happen. Tarc (talk) 23:46, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Rarely am I wont to defend Malleus, especially when he posts such a hypocritical complaint, but in this case, bad block. This can't help but to inflame drama. Resolute 23:47, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Unblocked

I have undone this block. I gave the blocking admin a chance to do so, and they declined. This is clearly a bad (or at least excessive) block. Would any other editor have been blocked for a week for a mildly incivil edit summary after being provoked? No. If this ends up at AC, so be it. Black Kite (talk) 23:48, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

• When Malleus isn't provoked or told what to do, he can work pretty well (I watched him turn an article into an FA over the course of this month). But when he does repeat offenses for incivility, I support blocks of him. Perhaps not 1 week, but probably 31-48 hours. I believe the block was justified; had this been his first offense he would've been warned at the most, but this is a long-term pattern for which blocks are perfectly reasonable.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:50, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

• The only person that I can see that should've been threatened with a block here was JTrainor, who knew exactly what he was doing with that inflammatory posting to which Malleus responded. Black Kite (talk) 23:54, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

• I think only Malleus has true responsibility for that edit summary. It's easy to provoke him, true, and it's his personality to get provoked, as I've observed. However, it's just not right to fault others for his behavior. --Jasper Deng (talk) 00:02, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry but that is ridiculous, Jasper. Or even bollocks. <g> The involved admins and even you are aware of the background, not just of this instance but more generally. There is more to it than the edit summary. - Sitush (talk) 01:00, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• Have we learned nothing from the ArbCom case? Bongwarrior started a discussion of the block above, which had been going for 16 minutes before you charged in and lifted the block for bad reasons (is it unjustified, or of too long a duration? - it can't be both as you state above), despite several other another admin endorsing the block. This should go to ArbCom. Nick-D (talk) 23:57, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

No, Nick... it should have gone HERE, first. Just like an editor making an unsupported edit, an admin taking an administrative action on an admin forum should be well supported by the crowd. Most of you have 'the bit', and so any of you could have made the block. The question is whether you are in a consensus about whether Malleus' edit summary was deserving of a block. The block was done hastily, and I believe emotionally, and should have been done in consultation with the rest of you given the nature of the complaint. Now rather than dwell on this, can you issue trouts all around and say Civility is not optional, yet part of Civility requires that we be patient with those who act incivil at times? There's plenty of blame to go around, so if you plan to block everyone involved, then get consensus for it. If you plan to forgive and warn, then get consensus for that. Either way... be consistent. You send a very bad message when an admin can get away with saying fuck you, while an editor can't say arsehole. -- Avanu (talk) 00:05, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

No he didn't. He blocked him and then started a discussion. If there was a situation where Malleus needed to be blocked here, the discussion should have happened first. Perhaps it can happen now. Black Kite (talk) 00:10, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

There is no requirement for admins to start a discussion prior to blocking, especially in pretty clear-cut cases such as this (an editor which a history of making abusive comments, and has been admonished by ArbCom for this, continuing to do so on a central noticeboard). Nick-D (talk) 00:15, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I would completely agree with you if this was a "clear-cut case". Which it obviously wasn't. Witness huge thread with various views. Black Kite (talk) 00:20, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• Blocks are supposed to be Preventative. Not Punative as this one clearly was. Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 23:59, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

• Blocks can be, as here, both punitive and preventative. When Malleus is provoked, blocking him prevents further of this until he wears off the prevocation.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:02, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• So we should block Malleus every time someone baits him, just in case he responds with an incivility? Have a think about that one, seriously. Black Kite (talk) 00:12, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

No, but if he can't take the high road and results to the same behavior as the alleged "baiter", nobody should be hesitant to block him because they don't feel like dealing with the drama that comes with dealing with him. I agree that his comment in that summary should have resulted in a block. Rjd0060 (talk) 00:18, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

News just in - editors are human. If they're insulted, they tend to bite back. But you're saying we should block the baitee because they bite back (and because of who they are), but not the original baiter? Really? Black Kite (talk) 00:24, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Where in the hell did I say that? :-) I did not comment on that side of the matter. But since you asked, of course all users who are attacking, harassing or otherwise causing a disruptive environment should be blocked. Rjd0060 (talk) 01:21, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yes. WP:BAIT does state that the baited one should resist the bait. If it turns out that he takes the bait, then he's blocked to prevent more of this. --Jasper Deng (talk) 00:19, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I don;t think that quoting an essay here really helps, to be honest. Black Kite (talk) 00:25, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Right, if blocks are going to occur here, I believe Jtrainor, Mark, and Malleus should all receive one. Otherwise none should. To cherry pick Malleus from this bunch just because he is Malleus is out of line. Ryan Vesey 00:28, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

In terms of liabilities to blockage, I believe that in increasing order of block-worthiness: JTrainor, Mark Arsten, Malleus. However, I'm going to WP:AGF and assume that JTrainor meant not to do a baiting/provocation... and you want him to be blocked for that? Mark should've known much better and the only reason I'm not asking for his block is his acknowledgement and apology. Most importantly they didn't commit repeat offenses unless I'm missing something here. And no, I don't think Malleus' personality is an excuse for what he was blocked for.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:31, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Personally I don't really think that this leaves much room for WP:AGF... Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 00:37, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

He meant well, but to be honest the next time he does it is going to end with sanctions. Has it been a long-term problem with him?--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:41, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

"repeat offences"? Black Kite (talk) 00:35, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Did Mark and JTrainor do their respective offenses here (e-mail PAs and baiting respectively) previously too? The answer to that question was yes for Malleus, hence why I supported the block.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:37, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure any blocks were necessary, though if MF is blocked then Mark should probably be blocked too. I don't see JTrainor's comment as blockworthy - we're supposed to be adults here and we all face comments that wind us up. The big idea is to control yourself. Some can do that, some resort to name-calling. If you can't control your reactions to something you don't like, then you're going to get yourself into difficulty, admin or non-admin. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:41, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

As I said, Mark acknowledged his mistake... and yes, next time he should get blocked. Now I think of it, "grow thicker skin" is quite provocative and a second offense should lead to a block for him too.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:44, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

The point is that no-one should have been blocked here. I mean, honestly, look at the sequence of events here. Mark reacted (very inappropriately) to something that Malleus said, and later on Malleus reacted (mildly incivilly) to something that JTrainor said. The result? Malleus gets blocked. Ludicrous. Can we close this now? Black Kite (talk) 00:46, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

(e/c) For sure, a repetition of the offense by either should probably be viewed dimly. But even though MF has a history of incivility, I thought the week-long block was a bit strong. That said, I'd take much more kindly to being told to grow a thicker skin than I would to being called an arsehole. This whole thing is pretty unedifying. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:49, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Generalizing this

Do emails sent via wikipedia "count" in the same way posts count or not? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 00:04, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• I think that direct personal attacks via the interface falls under WP:NPA because NPA states "Do not make personal attacks anywhere on Misplaced Pages", which thus includes the emailuser function.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:05, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I believe off-wiki harassment should be dealt with more severely, but harassment through email is certainly within the realm of things action can be taken over. The statement on Special:EmailUser/Example "A private log of this action will be retained for the purpose of preventing abuse, and can be viewed by certain privileged users. This log does not identify the recipient, title, or contents of the e-mail. In cases of serious abuse, Wikimedia Foundation staff can verify the recipient account" shows that clearly. Ryan Vesey 00:07, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

(e/c) According to Civility policy there is no difference. So yes, they should count the same way. If there is an exception, it would be good to see it, and see the justification as to why. -- Avanu (talk) 00:08, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I see. So what it means is that these kinds of messages shouldn't be sent until one is an admin. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 00:17, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

How did you get to that conclusion? In fact, had Mark not replied to the e-mail acknowledging apology for it, and had it been seen by another admin, a block with e-mail disabled could've been possible.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:21, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

How did I come to the conclusion? — Malleus has another 2 entries in his block og, Mark gets none. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 00:24, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't take your comment as being in the context of the above, as this is about generalization. I would actually support blocking Mark had he not aplogized, as I said before.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:28, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

This is generalized, because I've seen this before: " is allowed to say this, because he was provoked. gets instantaneous block because lets himself be provoked" Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 00:32, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Why don't admins block admins? Because they fear the backlash. If we can, by perhaps a policy, eliminate the backlash from blocking an admin, this won't be a problem anymore.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:34, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I'm aware of the causes. They stick together no matter what. Pigs on animal farm. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 00:36, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Very true. But if we made a policy stating that no-one can dispute a brief (12-hour) NPA block for an admin, or something similar, we'd really be holding admins to higher standards.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:39, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

You'd need an RfC that would naturally be overrun by admins, just like all other measures limiting the ruling class' power will be blocked by that same ruling class. Hopeless. Therefore: be nice until you become an admin, then you can do whatever you want. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 00:44, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

An RfC might succeed even if we make that assumption, as non-admins outnumber admins by a lot.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:47, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Nyeah... all admins will refuse to implement it. So no, ain't gonna happen. Being an admin means being completely immune. Jackpot. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 00:51, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Exactly right, would never happen. Malleus Fatuorum 00:55, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

That could be a start, yes. At least we could plainly see the double standard right here. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 00:59, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Yep. Never seen the point of it. Occasionally I get a constructive email, but in general as an editor, I never used it and as an admin, I simply get random abuse which I delete. Black Kite (talk) 01:01, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, get rid of e-mail. Perhaps we could have an RfC on that? Frankly, I like Mark and have never seen him causing trouble before, so I hate to say this but he should face at least some level of discipline here just for the sake of appearances. After all, admins should be the standard bearers here. However, we should take into account that (as far as I know) Mark doesn't have a history of this. AutomaticStrikeout 01:03, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I strongly oppose disabling EmailUser for everyone, as I often need to use it for matters that are not suitable for on-wiki discussion. However, it should be noted that even CheckUsers can't see the e-mail contents, only the fact that the user sent the email from a particular IP/user agent.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:13, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I have opened an RfC here. It's my first RfC, so I may not have done everything correctly. AutomaticStrikeout 01:19, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

do all agree that user Demiurge1000 is "scum", "sleaze boy" and "pathetic, anonymous worm"?

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

If not, why the user who attacked Demiurge1000 is not blocked yet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.248.236 (talk) 00:06, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• Considering this, the above, and virtually every other post at any of these noticeboards, perhaps it is time to have a serious discussion about making WP:NPA a zero-tolerance issue, exempt from the preventative not punitive mandate. (To a logical extent, no blocks for issues 3 weeks old) Ryan Vesey 00:09, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you could adopt a rule that if someone is found to have made public attacks or incivil comments, they have to adopt the use of parliamentary language for a specified period of time, and if they fail to adhere to that standard, they get a 1 week block. Just offering an idea. -- Avanu (talk) 00:18, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe not all, but I'm sure some do? :)

Insults like "sleaze boy" are something I've never ever seen or heard outside of The A-Team. Thus it is very hard for me to take such an insult seriously, or be offended by it.

It may offend others; it may contribute to lowering the tone of the discussion in question, and of Jimbo's talk page in general. But, the discussion wasn't exactly achieving a stellar level of constructiveness (some might think the entire thread served no purpose right from its start), and indeed Jimbo's talk page does see such threads quite often.

Another thing that makes it hard to take such insults seriously is that I predicted that the editor concerned would start calling me names, and he duly did so. His inability to answer the questions that I put to him, meant his collapse into ad hominem was pretty much inevitable. Hence I think the name-calling, pathetic though it was, was a result of frustration on the part of that editor, and probably not a matter for immediate action if it hasn't been an ongoing pattern. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:30, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Sleaze boy suggested a named person was interested in slitting people's throats because someone else made a highly inappropriate comment at a website the named person frequents. I called sleaze boy on it. Sleaze boy then suggested I (also a named person) was interested in slitting people's throats because I also post on the website that the inappropriate comment was made. "Demiurge1000" (aka "sleaze-boy," I'm trying to be kind) has accused me of being a would be murderer based on the fact that I use the internet. And now this pathetic worm wants me "blocked" for refusing to treat that as acceptable. Have fun sorting the ethics of this out. Let's start by knowing his full name. That seems like a fair starting point. Dan Murphy (talk) 00:40, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

You are aware that this thread was not started by Demiurge1000. I see no evidence that he was calling for you to be blocked. AutomaticStrikeout 00:57, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

No, it was started by some anon IP. And Demiurge held off for awhile with calling for a block, and only came back a bit later with the whole faux-sorrow routine of "I wasn't going to ask for a block but now I unfortunetly see it's part of a pattern so it pains me, it really really pains me, to ask for a block". He's been around, but so have I and I have seen this kind of back handed hypocritical "I'm gonna pretend it really hurts me to do it" block shopping too often too count. Volunteer Marek  01:40, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I've never suggested a "named person" was interested in slitting people's throats, nor have I suggested that you were likely to do so either. Nor have I suggested that you should have been blocked for your puerile comments that were obviously made in frustration - in fact I suggested the opposite (read my comment above a little more carefully).

However, now that I look more closely, I see that you're also busy accusing other editors of being liars, today, and that you follow up your ridiculous behaviour with more of the same in this thread, and that you also have a block log for similar behaviour in the past. So yes, there does indeed seem to be an ongoing pattern here. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:48, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Demiurge1000, your comments were, let's say "purposefully inaccurate", "intentionally untrue", "not accidentally false", "deliberately misleading", "calculatedly erroneous". You basically implied that someone made a nasty threat when such a person did no such thing. When Dan called you on it, you began insinuating similar odious things about him.

I dunno. Maybe that's not "sleazy". Maybe it's not a "lie". But one thing it clearly is is a very passive aggressive way of pissing others off and provoking them, seemingly on purpose. And then trying to weasel out a sanction out of that successful provocation in a venue like this. Volunteer Marek  01:04, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I "basically implied" no such thing. If you're going to accuse me of lying (as Bali ultimate, now signing as "Dan Murphy", seems delighted to do to other editors right now), then you're going to have to back that up. Further, as for "trying to weasel out a sanction out of that", I didn't start this thread; and my first reaction to this thread (before seeing Bali ultimate's similar behaviour today towards other editors, and his block log for the same behaviour in the past), was to suggest that a block was not necessary. Trying to twist things to pretend otherwise, does you little credit. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:13, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Some guy emailed me to point out that the "sleaze boy" and "anonymous coward" taunts towards me, and the calling another editor a liar (diff above), are all part of a pattern of similar stuff by Bali ultimate over the last few days, including "You're just another anonymous shit-heel using Misplaced Pages (since it ranks high in google searches) to spread hate.". --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:17, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

You want me to back it up? Sure no problem. You said: "The Saruman comparison might be a little over-dramatic, but then again, "Peter Damian" and friends are prone to being excessively dramatic themselves. "It just makes me want to fly to London, get a box-cutter, and start slitting nerdy little throats" isn't the sort of thing I've ever seen anyone in authority on Misplaced Pages get away with saying. The throats in question are those of certain Misplaced Pages editors."

Now, of course you damn well knew when you wrote that "Peter Damian" did not write the sentence you included right after mentioning him. Sure, you didn't explicitly state "Peter Damian said that he wanted to slit people's throats" - it'd be too easy to disprove that - but the way you structured your claim, first by mentioning Peter Damian, then by stating he is "excessively dramatic" and THEN quoting a statement he did NOT make, very clearly insinuates that the person you are discussing made that sentence. Which he did not.

Like I said, yes, it wasn't a 100% lie. Those are easy to disprove. But it was a ... "deliberate inaccuracy".

Maybe this kind of behavior isn't "sleazy". Maybe it isn't a "lie". But it sure as hey isn't decent. Volunteer Marek  01:37, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, you are not editing under your real name, which means that "You're just another anonymous shit-heel" and "anonymous worm" was said about you too. Peter Damian used socks to edit Misplaced Pages, which means that " You're also probably a "sock-puppet" though I don't give a shit about that kind of stuff (though I have no respect for the asshats that do it to avoid scrutiny)" was said about him too. And now this edit summary: "run along sleaze and accuse some other victim of being a murderer behind your veil of "anonymity"". Dan Murphy is an enormous net negative to the project.

• This is exactly why I recently removed Jimbo's talk page from my watchlist and stopped commenting on anything there. And don't see this thread going anywhere either. It's Saturday night, shut off the computer, go have a drink, and forget about it. That's what I will be doing right now. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:11, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• Why is an obviously-logged-out and/or blocked user being allowed to troll WP:AN? There is nothing productive coming from this IP at all. Tarc (talk) 02:21, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• And, yes, Beeblebrox and Tarc, according to Dan Murphy you are "anonymous shit-heels" and "anonymous worms" too.

• I do not agree that Demiurge1000 is a "scum", "sleaze boy" nor a "pathetic, anonymous worm". Killiondude (talk) 05:20, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

  As we all did. Thread should be closed and Murphy should be indeffed, along with any sockpuppets. Rcsprinter (gas) @ 09:41, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Other personal attacks by Dan Murphy

See here, here, here. It really doesn't matter who he's saying such things to, active editor, blocked editor, sockpuppet, ect. It's all inappropriate. Silverseren 05:16, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Gimme a break. Volunteer Marek  14:26, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Where do I drop off these cats?

How about a rotation of admins on AN and AN/I ?

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

Looking at this, it seems that part of the problem with such threads as the one Ed17 just closed is the free-for-all nature. Would it help to take any thread that is seeming to go out of control and move it from the general free-for-all into a pre-designated system where admins (and editors) are restricted from participating unless they meet a certain criteria? You could do it by the day of the month the thread started, along with the letters in the username of the person. Something that would ensure a degree of randomness and fairness, and would limit the number of people who are chiming in. Opinions are like apples.... or was that another word? :) But honestly, for threads that tend to spiral out of control, limiting the number of people seems like it might help things come to a more healthy resolution. -- Avanu (talk) 01:30, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Totally-involved admins may continue to comment, but it's a sad truth that admins will never be the same as non-admins.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:34, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose as unenforceable and not practical, and against the volunteer spirit of Misplaced Pages. --Rschen7754 01:40, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - no offence intended but has 1 April come early? I do not get this at all. @Jasper, I especially do not understand your "admins/non-admins" comment for this wrt ANI, which is even less an "admin only" noticeboard than here. But I am tired and off to bed. Maybe I'm missing the bleeding obvious, - Sitush (talk) 01:45, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose The issue is not that anyone can speak up, it's that some people say and do things that unnecessarily raise the drama level. It's not a good idea to exclude most people because a few people don't moderate themselves or their actions particularly well. I haven't seen a good solution to these kinds of messes yet, but it's worth stressing that this specifically isn't it. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:03, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

A small team of people, staying focused, seems more likely to come to a conclusion more quickly. In the thread above, I can't tell whether it was important for the admin to have a change of heart, or whether the collective will was sidetracked by Malleus getting blocked. What is the lesson learned from the overall thread above? In fact, it was closed because it got derailed by side issues. I don't see how submitting something to a committee is contrary to the 'volunteer spirit' or 'discriminatory', but I suppose anything goes here. -- Avanu (talk) 02:52, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

That's because, in the context of civility & respect for fellow editors, WP doesn't have a collective will. Nobody Ent 02:56, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• Qualified support I'd be totally willing to be part of this as soon as I know how much it pays. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:04, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - I don't even really feel like making up a reason. Tarc (talk) 02:06, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose as impractical and discriminatory. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:11, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Tarc.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:04, 30 September 2012 (UTC))
• Oppose per Beyond My Ken. AutomaticStrikeout 03:21, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Note

I closed it before Ed17, for the record. Just that Black Kite disagreed. See my talk page for more. Rcsprinter (deliver) @ 09:38, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I unstruck my comment and one that cited it. Yes it was flippant, meant to reflect the absurdity of the proposal itself. Tarc (talk) 13:45, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing absurd about asking for the Admin corps and Misplaced Pages to seek better processes to handle disputes and behavior problems. The idea of sending something to a committee is nothing new, and it is already employed by several areas in Misplaced Pages when we desire a very clear understanding of the issues. -- Avanu (talk) 18:25, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

There is something rather absurd about an editor who has contributed so little to the encyclopedia as you have continuing to be concerned about larger matters of policy and behavior. Earn some credibility with your edits before you try to reform the system. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:54, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I see little incentive to "earn" some degree of admiration in the eyes of someone who has such little respect for others. I deal with a lot of people on a daily basis, some are brilliant, and some are not, and I never demand that they earn the right from me to be treated with dignity. Narrow minded and selfish people think it makes them better to be able to lord their achievements over others. I'll honor contributions, and I'll thank anyone for what they do, but I'm not giving you or anyone else a pass to act like an ass because you think you have earned the right to be shitty to others. We're not working in a wartime situation and you are no Patton. You're a guy who knows how to add tags and fix small problems, and from what I can tell, that is the extent of what you do. I'm tired of the stupidness and selfishness and the general fuck-the-little-guy attitude. But some of you seem to get your rocks off on that. I would have thought humanity could have come a little further, but I guess not. -- Avanu (talk) 09:14, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

It's not that I have earned the right to be shitty to anyone, it's that you have earned the right for others to disdain your ideas about reforming Misplaced Pages -- which are always rejected by the community -- because (1) they're silly, and (2) your contributions to the project are minimal. Concentrate on editing articles for a while, show that you're actually interested in building an encyclopedia, then you can come back here and indulge your taste for social engineering and expect your ideas (if they're valuable) to be given attention. In the meantime, you're basically just a freerider. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Karaims

We need a new Admin over at Karaims an endangered Tatar ethnic group associated with the 18th century Unitarian movements of Eastern Europe but often confused with Karaite Jews due to the general trend among Unitarian groups (e.g. the related Molokans and Subbotniks etc.) with non-conventional Islamic origins in Eastern Europe to convert to Judaism. The third admin has now quit without adjudicating on a request to return the article to its original and less exclusive name (although he did try to stop users from re-factoring each others talk page comments by archiving the origins of the dispute). I have tried more than once to ask us to come together, but there are a few religious fanatics who are a bit hell-bent on deleting appropriately sourced facts from this ethnicity page which do not fit with their own fundamentalist POV pushing. Be warned that you will see a lot of division, a lot of ignorance, a lot of sock-puppetry and tag-team work e.g. to make sure the 3RR is not broken by one etc., avoiding dialogue and discussion, disregard for attempts to placate, a lot of ad-hominem and strawman attacks, and moreover the requested move although appropriate is a license nightmare due to copy and pasting instead of editors using the move function. This dispute has been on and off since a move back in 2004 by a user who has since changed his mind about what he did. The recent conflicts have been building up since August. Over 20 nice people have left this discussion over the years, most of them recently. If you have the skills for complex Sysop stuff, are interested in endangered Ethnic groups, unconventional Islamic sects in Eastern Europe, NPOV and have a lot of patience and nerve as well as time on your hands then please do step in to arbitrate. Kaz 07:29, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Sigh. I,am the admin who just walked away from this unholy mess in disgust. What these guys need is apparently a babysitter, not an admin. They can't play nice with the talk page. What is needed is not another admin but some formal WP:DR to put an end to all the foolishness there. I have asked for an uninvolved closer for the move request at WP:ANRFC, but that may take some time. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:15, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

For the future

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

Can we say there is solid and unequivocal consensus from the Admin corps that any admin who uses the email feature in future to send unprofessional *and* uncivil commentary will have their admin bit revoked, or at least have a block/ban of a certain length? Or shall we continue in a gray area on this? -- Avanu (talk) 09:44, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• • Comment I'm a bit on the fence with regards to this proposal. Proposal 1 is a pretty heavy punishment which would need Arbcom to step in and really needs to be indicative of a sustained pattern of abuse. 2 and 3 aren't really all that different. Neither of these are really tenable because some will just bring up the whole "preventative vs punitive" thing and these 2 are definitely punitive and would probably cos wheel warring or at the very least days of bitter drama on AN or ANI where the blockee gets blocked/unblocked a few times and everyone wanders off with a lot of time wasted and nothing achieved. Don't get me wrong, personally I feel that the civility policy is interpreted in so many ways that it's mostly a headfuck but it should be something that needs to be applied even more strongly than it is now. The only consensus that you'll see in this RFC is the lack of one. Blackmane (talk) 11:37, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• This proposal has been precipitated by a very recent, rare, event. I don't think we need to introduce either a fixed penalty system or a 'do nothing' solution. I feel any future occurrences can be adequately examined and handled on a case by case basis. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:32, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

  What makes you so confident that it was a "very rare event"? Malleus Fatuorum 19:11, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

  I don't think anyone's convinced that there is an epidemic of admins emailing insults to "peasants" like us. You'd need real evidence to back up such a theory, not just the usual wikianarchist rhetoric. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:41, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• Impossible. It's very easy for me to send an e-mail to someone that says "I like Fruit Loops". The receiver could forward the e-mail to someone and make the original say "I think you're a Fruit. I should Loop a noose around your neck". We cannot penalize something that is so unsecured that it can be modified. dangerouspanda 12:35, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
• I'm in agreement with Kudpung on this; this is very much an edge case. Our policy pages and help documentation are already so full of them as to be useless. Ironholds (talk) 13:06, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Agreed, such cases should be handled depending on the circumstances without any standardised sanctions. De728631 (talk) 13:28, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

If Kudpung and Ironholds agree on something, I'm pretty sure it must be the right answer. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:17, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

(e/c) @De728631: The problem is, such cases aren't "handled". If it is someone you guys dislike, you throw the book at them. If it is someone you like, there are many excuses offered and rationales proffered. Yet many admins issue sanctions at the drop of a hat. What we need is consistency and professionalism. In the case that spawned this proposal, nothing was done, because the person apologized, and because another admin sidetracked the discussion with sanctions against the complaintant. This is a systemic problem, and part of fixing it is coming up with standards that you do not violate. Perhaps an admin oath may be needed. Perhaps the bright line on certain behaviors. But as long as it is perpetually gray, you will have this problem. -- Avanu (talk) 18:21, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I haven't looked too much into the massive wall of text of the original discussion but an apology seems fine to me, and closing the thing was probably a good idea to prevent any further heating up of arguments. Just as we don't block for punitive reasons once an editor admits they've been wrong, we might not always throw the full book at administrators who made a mistake and apologise afterwards. Likewise, if you feel that certain admins are biased when it comes to handling reports then you should address that individually. Consistency by always following any rule and guideline in the strict sense of the letter is not helpful because that would turn Misplaced Pages into the bureaucracy we all want to avoid. De728631 (talk) 19:00, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• Where do we draw the line? Suppose I use the on Misplaced Pages interface to email an admin some criticism, this by function reveals my email. If the admin writes back a terribly uncivil response, are we saying that sanction would occur if the admin used the in interface email this user function, but would not occur if they used the reply function in their email client, and thereby bypassed Misplaced Pages entirely? That seems horribly arbitrary, yet to include the latter case would be equally problematic, as when do you draw the line and admit it is off wiki conduct that cannot be dealt with here? Monty₈₄₅ 15:16, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
  • What I'm wondering about is the verifiability of such problematic emails. I would think that the Misplaced Pages interface does log what has been sent, so who is actually able to check that? De728631 (talk) 19:00, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe there is any record of the actual content of WP emails. They are considered private, that is kind of the point. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:05, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

That's the problem here. If you can't track it down how are you going to prove abuse? Anyone can claim having been insulted via the automated email tool and the accused parties can always deny their involvement. As long as judgement is based on mere claims we shouldn't consider creating any hypothetical set of general sanctions. De728631 (talk) 19:22, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

So we compound the felony by accusing the recipient of emails such as the one that sparked this discussion of lying and tampering with the evidence? Nice. Malleus Fatuorum 19:25, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

In the particular case that sparked all this hysteria we know exactly what happened because the person who sent the email has completely owned up to it. Absent evidence of a more widespread issue with verbal abuse in emails I don't see any point to continuing to discuss it. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:41, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) To the extent that every admin who has commented is against this proposal, I agree with all of them, and I'm not going to vote on the "pick one" stuff below. This topic should be closed.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:27, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

RfC - PICK ONE:

• Proposal #1 - You lose adminship.

• Proposal #2 - You get a civility block for 3 days.

• Proposal #3 - You get a civility ban for 1 week, which requires careful and professional interaction for that period of time.

• Proposal #4 - Nothing at all/Trout/Slap on wrist.

• Um, we don't do RFCs right on this page generally. Not o mention that this is poorly formatted, does not use the actual RFC tag and so won't be listed with other policy RFCs, the whole idea is pretty dumb and obviously not supported, etc, etc. If you, whoever you are that posted this, insist on having this discussion please review WP:RFC and create a subpage somewhere for this. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:21, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• It was posted by Avanu. While we don't do RFCs here generally, we're also not a bureaucracy. Nobody Ent 18:37, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, like this is really going to work out really well, like every other attempt to do something like this has. The civility police need to calm the fuck down. Ph noes, I saided a bad word! Please, pepper my talk page with bullshit warnings about civility. Oh noes I did it again! Where's the swear jar, I'll go get a nickel... Beeblebrox (talk) 18:44, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd love to come up with the perfect solution here. Beeblebrox, if you're here to help, then by all means, join the party. But if you're here to throw a fit or just say it's dumb, I'm sure you can find a more receptive audience. Blackmane, Kudpung, Malleus, EatsShootsAndLeaves, De728631, Monty845, and even you at first, were able to contribute without swearing and without resorting to incivil comments. If you have a better idea than my proposal, that would be great. But staying in a gray area where you can say "Fuck off asshole; I'm really sorry" seems like a bad place, especially for those we trust with admin rights. I'm not looking for MY idea to win, I'm looking for some positive idea from anyone who has one. -- Avanu (talk) 19:19, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting anywhere in this proposal or in all of Misplaced Pages that we adopt a Pollyanna-ish approach to bad words. If you will note in the opening I said "unprofessional and uncivil commentary (in email)". I did not say this means you can't say expletives as a rule. The context and professionalism matters. So again, either come here with a positive contribution or find something else to derail. -- Avanu (talk) 19:40, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Here's a news flash for you: You don't get to dictate who particpates in a discussion. You were told that rathwr clearly by the community just yesterday, right here on this page. This newest dumb idea is not a positive contribution as you make it out to be, it is a poorly thought out disaster in the making and in case you hadn't noticed literally nobody is actually picking one of your four options, and calls for this entire idiotic thread to be closed are now becoming apparent. Since this is such a bad idea I don't actually need to argue against it for it to fail but I will not be dictated to by you or anyone else regarding which community discussion participate in. If you can't handle your proposals being strongly rejected by the community don't propose them in the first place. Or maybe put more than five seconds of thought into them instead of posting nonsense like this. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:51, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I've moved this from a prior closing statement: Nobody Ent 19:58, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Like many threads in AN and AN/I, this one started off well. But until the crowd acknowledges a better approach is needed, AN and AN/I are not useful for thoughtful and professional debate. Closing. Thanks to those who approached the problem with a serious attitude. -- Avanu (talk) 19:43, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Student exchange program

Okay, somehow no one noticed that Student exchange program was hijacked and re-written as a POV-pushing article back in April, and moved to the title ‪Cultural Exchange Programs as Public Diplomacy‬. I've restored the content back to pre-hijack status, and need the title moved back. Ten Pound Hammer • 23:01, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Cheers. Salvio 23:14, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Hidden pictures!

Hi sysops. I dont know why I cant show 2 pictures ( and ) of my uploads in Afghanistan–Iran relations. can you help me?Gire 3pich2005 (talk) 16:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I see the pictures just fine (Afghanistan–Iran relations#Gallery). But you should probably put the pictures on Commons: so other wikis can use them. Also this type of question should generally go on WP:HELPDESK rather than the administrator board. Do you really have an EOS-5D Mark II that you took these pictures with? How do you like it? 67.117.130.72 (talk) 17:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

No. there is fivr pictures in the article. but two of them havnt shown. these are my problem.Gire 3pich2005 (talk) 20:11, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

You were missing a pipe for each image, so it was only adding every other image. It was |Filename|Alt=Alt text and needed to be |Filename|Alt=Alt text|Caption even if the caption is blank. Should be fixed now. For future reference, WP:HELPDESK should be your first stop for this sort of question, as this noticeboard is more directed at administrative issues rather then normal problems editing. Monty₈₄₅ 20:23, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm a bit concerned about those images. They look like they were taken by an official photographer, no one else would have that kind of access, but if the uploader is an official photographer for the event, he might not own the photos, his employer more than likely would have ownership of the images. Thoughts? Sven Manguard Wha? 02:45, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree. We should ask for a formal declaration of permission, which should include an explanation of why the access, which isn't likely for a random editor.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:52, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the user's talk page, I think it's unfortunately likely the user is not the copyright holder of those works. Nil Einne (talk) 15:55, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:Requests for unblock

More admins are needed to address pending unblock requests. There are currently 20 requests, some of which have been waiting for several days. --auburnpilot talk 00:12, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Administrative backlogs (!)

We need some admins at WP:RPP.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:31, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

UAA and RFU could use attention as well. Rjd0060 (talk) 01:31, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of backlogs, is there a tool to make clearing them faster by doing relatively redundant steps for you? I mean like, a tool that when you block an editor automatically appends the relevant or chosen template to their talk page? And other such things. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:39, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:EASYBLOCK allows me to block & add the template at one click. Useful for UAA and AIV. – Connormah (talk) 01:40, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Can an IP User talk page be used to store a "userfy" version of an article under AfD?

The IP talk page User talk:IP 12.153.112.21 is being used by the IP to store a "userfied" version of an article up for AfD. Is that appropriate? Note also that the article under consideration is about an AT&T product line and the IP is registered to AT&T. -- The Red Pen of Doom 14:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Note that this is the talkpage for a user called IP 12.153.112.21 (talk · contribs) - it's not the IP talk page itself, which is User talk:12.153.112.21. Andrew Gray (talk) 14:32, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

oh, my bad. -- The Red Pen of Doom 14:37, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

So the user is still allowed to edit through the real open IP and use the improperly named user account talk page as a storage facility for their work? (as they did today ) -- The Red Pen of Doom 15:08, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

(EC with below) I don't see any problem with them editing under their IP, the primary reason the user seems to have been blocked was because of the username which is confusingly similar to an IP (as this thread shows) which is forbidden under the username policy. Okay their requests for unblock were hardly productive but I wouldn't say they merit a block of the IP unless they continue in that vein. However it does seem inappropriate to use a blocked user's user or talk page in any way. Nil Einne (talk) 15:35, 2 October 2012 (UTC) P.S. I'm presuming the IP isn't doing anything else bad Nil Einne (talk) 15:39, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

They're socking, ip address should be blocked. Nobody Ent 15:30, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Are they doing anything bad to our articles? If not, leave them alone. It is not socking to edit with an IP if a username is blocked for being a bad username. Jehochman 15:38, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

No opinion about the possible socking and other possible misconduct but IP userspace exists just like any other userspace and working on article drafts in it (either pre-submission or after afd userfication) seems perfectly fine to me. As with anyone else, per WP:WEBHOST, the page shouldn't stay unless there's reasonable activity towards bringing it up to standards. I do remember seeing that username (or something like it) in the past. I don't have much opinion of the practice. 67.117.130.72 (talk) 15:43, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

That IP is actually registered to the Answer Group (Outsourced call center --- I used to work for them ). He's part of the AT&T U-Verse account (when you call AT&T U-verse you're likely speaking to TAG (The Answer Group) ) .  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  15:56, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Administrative backlog