Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:05, 3 June 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

Lost another good editor/Admin to a long-term vandal

User:Nev1 has gone, at least for a while, due to a persistent IP hopping vandal, last seen on my talk page celebrating victory. This harassment has been going on for about a year, and it appears there is nothing we can do about it. It's really pretty bad that editors can still be terrorised (really I don't think that's too strong a word) in this way. Dougweller (talk) 18:37, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

People are going to be persistent, and that's the reality and truth. I'm sorry to see him leave, but there is not much anyone can do on an open site like this. This is an environment where any certain action, edit, or comment made at the wrong time (like a block) can lead to years of frustration and harassment by others, and that is especially what all current admins – and admin hopefuls – need to understand and accept. If you cannot, then you should not be an admin, plain and simple. --MuZemike 18:50, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

True - and it's not just our talk and user pages that this person is vandalising, it is articles as well. And if they do it randomly.... Dougweller (talk) 18:52, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

That's complete bollocks. Administrators at least have the privilege of not being harassed by administrators. Malleus Fatuorum 18:55, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

There's exceptions to every rule though .. IJS Chedzilla (talk) 19:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Malleus, that may be true but it's also the case that it's because administrators sometimes have to do the dirty work of blocking that they in particular become targets in the way that is less likely for other editors. Though I agree that's what you sign up for as an admin and I'm not asking for anyone to shed tears for the poor corps - least of all its most trenchant critic! Kim Dent-Brown 19:22, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

What a pile of crap I am reading here, "there is nothing you can do" and "that's the reality and truth". I find not treating people like shit and treat them like people instead and it's a whole new world.

Granted it's on a planet in a galaxy far far away from wikipedia, but that counts as a new world. Penyulap ☏ 21:04, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Tell that to the long-term vandals and harassers out there. Just as there are many dedicated users who help keep the crap out of Misplaced Pages, there are just as many dedicated people who treat those same people like crap and make those unfortunate users that dare mess with them the prime targets of their ridicule. --MuZemike 21:14, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The difference in my approach is I accept the law of the universe called 'cause and effect'. Most other people, dare I say ever editor I have seen so far, doesn't make any connection at all. I have seen whopping great studies into vandalism which entirely miss the point by asking the wrong question. Penyulap ☏ 21:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Pen, the problem is that you are a reasonable person. The trolls who harass others into leaving are not. The problem is, we really can't stop them. There are too many ways to get around our blocks, and that's due to Misplaced Pages's (and the Internet's) open nature. We basically have to rely on them getting bored, or choosing to stop the behavior on their own. — The Hand That Feeds You: 22:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to say it, and it will certainly fall on deaf ears, but the solution to this is to require registration to edit. It's one thing to throw up one's hands at the drawbacks of the online world, but it's another things altogether to willfully reject the solution to the problem on ideological grounds. We're now one of the most used Internet resources around, but we still act as if we're a lowly start-up which has to allow vandalism and harrasment such as described here just to get the quantity of editors we need to move the encyclopedia forward - but we don't. In fact, since registration would almost immediately drop the volume of vandalism, all those hours spent in anti-vandal work would be able to be put towards actually improving the encycylopedia, instead of just preventing it from degenerating. "The encyclopedia anyone can edit" doesn't have to mean "Anyone who wants to can screw around with us," it can simply mean "Anyone who registers".

But, as I said, tilting at windmills. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:56, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Considering anyone can still register, your "solution" would barely slow them down. Don't get me wrong, I think mandatory registration just makes sense; however, it does not solve this problem. — The Hand That Feeds You: 13:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks BMK. That we continue to do this despite the pain it costs as well as the loss of good editors suggests to me at least that we have our priorities wrong. Principle over people? Dougweller (talk) 05:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I found this suggestion on Nev1's talk page, wouldn't it work? " Could an edit filter be written that disallows non autoconfirmed editors from posting the text string Nev1 in the mainspace". Dougweller (talk) 11:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Like others above, I am concerned about what looks to have been a rather nasty incident, running over a long period of time. Are there any lessons we can learn from it to protect others in the future? Hchc2009 (talk) 20:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how. Require logging in to edit will just result in sock-puppetry. Any bot to police the user's name is bound to have false positives or (worse) miss purposefully obfuscated comments. We could report their behavior to their ISP, but that isn't likely to have an effect. And until it gets into the realm of actual stalking, the police won't touch it. Without draconian measures to vet each person's identity when creating an account, there's no way to prevent a persistent troll from coming back. Most will get bored after a few months, but as we've seen, some will persist for years. If they never get bored of it, there's no real way to stop them. — The Hand That Feeds You: 21:36, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Basically, don't piss anybody off or even go near certain users or articles, or you will get burned and badly. --MuZemike 00:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

It might not be possible to stop harassers (though the Meta:Terms of Use allows for an uncomfortable range of legal options...) but it is possible to help the target. Misplaced Pages could have some sort of Harassed Users Defense League that identifies known, severe, well-defined, ongoing issues and keeps a group of people watching for specific harassers to revert them immediately. Wnt (talk) 11:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

That's an excellent idea. Nick-D (talk) 11:56, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree, I think a support process is more likely to help, given the absence of technical solutions. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

We had one a long time ago. It was called Misplaced Pages:Esperanza. As far as the "Terms of Use" are concerned, it's a nice official policy – on paper. However, enforcing it is completely different, and I would say that it is virtually impossible. --MuZemike 18:33, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Off-topic. — The Hand That Feeds You: 13:37, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Oh lovely, Malleus is not only using someone's pain here to attack administrators, he is now following me around to do this when I thanked another editor for reverting this vandal on my talk page. Dougweller (talk) 05:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC) What makes you think Malleus is "following you around"? The only interaction I can see between you two anywhere is on User talk:Parrot of Doom, and Malleus, PoD and Nev1 have worked closely together for years, as the three of them effectively run (ran) WP:GM. PoD is the most frequent contributor to Malleus's talk after Malleus himself; Malleus is the most frequent contributor to PoD's talk after PoD himself, and the pair of them are the two most frequent contributors to Nev1's talk aften Nev1 himself. If this is the comment you're interpreting as some kind of attack, then that's taking paranoia to an extreme; all he's doing is pointing out that this situation is an illustration of a problem Sue Gardner has been pointing out for a few months now. – iridescent 2 13:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC) This section may contain material not related to the topic of the article. Please help improve this section or discuss this issue on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove this message)

Requesting another topic ban for User:BruceGrubb

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

A topic ban was enacted this month for BruceGrubb (talk · contribs) - see Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive235#Requesting a topic ban for User:BruceGrubb. A similar issue has now come up at Conspiracy theory. Since July 2011 BruceGrubb has been using OR, poor sources, or violating WP:UNDUE in an attempt to "rehabilitate" the common understanding of the meaning of the phrase "conspiracy theory" - in this case, aided and abetted by Mystichumwipe (talk · contribs). BruceGrubb's focus on the Christ myth theory and Josephus on Jesus articles explain his interest in changing the common meaning of the term "conspiracy theory", as does Mystichumwipe's focus on rehabilitating Holocaust denial-related theories (see Mystichumwipe's editing history for many examples of the latter). There has never been a consensus for promoting this view on the article, and many lengthy Talk: page discussions opposing his proposed changes; see, for example:

• Talk:Conspiracy theory/Archive 14#Real world conspiracies
• Talk:Conspiracy theory/Archive 15 (the entire archive is devoted to this)
• Talk:Conspiracy theory/Archive 16#Definitions of conspiracy theory
• Talk:Conspiracy theory/Archive 16#"No consensus"
• Talk:Conspiracy theory/Archive 16#The lead
• Talk:Conspiracy theory#“Conspiracy theory” versus “Theory of conspiracy” (again)
• Talk:Conspiracy theory#The broader definition of Conspiracy Theory

Their M.O. appears to be

1. Attempt to edit-war in the article changes/re-write (e.g. )
2. Be reverted in turn by a wide variety of editors (e.g. )
3. Open up lengthy talk page discussions, wait a few weeks until other editors get frustrated or lose interest, then repeat.

By my count, Bruce has now reverted this POV into the article (in various forms) at least 26 times. Mystichumwipe was quite active in reverting in the early days, but is now more cautious, simply supporting Bruce's edits on Talk: or in the article, while letting Bruce do all the actual reverts. After the usual hiatus, Bruce began this edit-warring on the article again yesterday, and eventually got blocked for violating 3RR. I'm proposing a topic ban only on BruceGrubb because a) Bruce has been far more aggressive in his editing, and b) without BruceGrubb to edit-war on his behalf, Mystichumwipe will not be likely to edit-war instead. Jayjg 01:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• I am responding because I received a message about this thread. I had not looked at the Conspiracy theory page (not my topic really) but the effort Jayjg has put into preparing the diffs is impressive. Bruce's edit pattern fits a longer term trend, as suggested above. My experience has been that I have consistently failed to follow Bruce's logic, as many other people have commented. And when he was topic banned on WP:AN, the idea of "source misrepresentation" was mentioned by multiple editors. As a whole, I think Bruce has taken up much time from many people on multiple pages, and nothing constructive has come out of it. The last time Bruce was on WP:ANI (due to complaints about his WP:RSN edit behavior) he volunteered a piece of information that made me understand a few things. My guess is that, sooner or later, Bruce is likely to be indef-blocked for one reason or another. This is just one step along that path. History2007 (talk) 01:45, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  • As I said in ] If you haven't looked at ANY of the material in this case why are you wasting our time getting involved? as I said then IMHO it comes off as WP:HOUNDING--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) The wording "has now come up" appears to be disingenuous, as I'm aware from WT:V and WP:Inaccuracy that this is a long-running content dispute involving WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV.  The OP tried to remove an ipso facto case of inaccuracy regarding Conspiracy theory from the WP:Inaccuracy essay after Bruce Grubb mentioned the essay in another context.  We'll see if the administrators try to improve the encyclopedia this time, rather than allowing WP:AN to be used to win a content dispute involving a civil editor.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  • The history of authorship of the Inaccuracy essay is interesting, as is its youth, failure to be accepted in community arguments, and lack of common discussion in community arguments. There is no reason to believe that this essay is reasonable grounds for editing given these factors regarding the essay. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Is this what you meant? The page edits seem related, and the edit pattern seems to fit.... History2007 (talk) 02:56, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Given the current version under Conspiracy_theory#Usage_history states "The Oxford English Dictionary records the first use of the phrase "conspiracy theory" to a 1909 article in The American Historical Review. Other sources pre-date this use by nearly four decades..." which is simply a rewording of my version, History2007 is clearly blowing smoke as they did in ].
      • As for Fifelfoo smoke here the points they are contesting:

        "It should be noted just because sources are in conflict does not mean that one or more has to be inaccurate. They can be portraying the subject from different POVs and be essentially accurate within their respective points of view."

        "If the sources differ significantly in time it is advisable to do more research to determine if a change in meaning or view has occurred."--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

      • As Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive718#Mystichumwipe_and_conspiracy_theories_.282.29 shows Jayjg has used this board before in an attempt to censor an editor he didn't like and I was involved here in that mess too. This IMHO is another WP:GAME effort to get their way and it is tiresome.--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support topic banning BruceGrubb from Conspiracy theory and from articles connected with conspiracy theories, broadly construed. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Given Fifelfoo shutting down of a topic on the RSN board after only three hours in what IMHO was an attempt to short circuit any meaningful discussion on the topic and throwing around IMHO frivolous claims of disruption here (see ] I think this is an example of possible Misplaced Pages:Harassment via Misplaced Pages:Wikilawyering and WP:GAME rendering their comments on this matter moot.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support a more general ban on "fringe theories" (given other cases, e.g. the revert cycle here) if suitable characterization can be found because those are where the editor's less productive actions seem to take place. History2007 (talk) 03:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Given in ] History2007 admitted "I have not looked at any of the sources discussed here" I would say that unless they have evidence in this case this topic their comments are worthless and it seems to be another possible example of Misplaced Pages:Harassment via Misplaced Pages:Wikilawyering and WP:GAME especially when I have the support of Mystichumwipe, Mystylplx (who stopped doing anything in April) and even Nuujinn(Talk:Conspiracy_theory/Archive_16#Definitions_of_conspiracy_theory.

    Also note the OP's (Jayjg) brow beating of other editors in Talk:Conspiracy_theory/Archive_16#.22No_consensus.22 arguing for a consensus that as Mystylplx pointed out no longer existed. who later on stated "I count four in favor in the discussion. Myself, BruceGrubb, mystichumwipe and Rklawton. Misplaced Pages is not a democracy." (Mystylplx (talk) 23:24, 6 November 2011 (UTC))--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:53, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support. A more general ban on fringe theories (conspiracy theories and revisionist histories) seems necessary. --Loremaster (talk) 03:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Considering you did only a minor edit after Mystichumwipe ] you established consensus for MY version: "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus." (WP:CONS) your comment here makes no sense--unless you don't fully understand that part of consensus.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:53, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
• Can we suggest other sanctions to impose other than a topic ban? Personally, I would suggest two things. A strict imposition of 1RR on BruceGrubb for all articles in main space: the edit wars are just too much. And a strict adherence to WP:CIVIL in talk pages and edit summaries. He is well known to use phrases like "DEAL WITH IT!" and "<user> went crying to the noticeboard to win a dispute". If he could express his views without so much emotion attached, I think people would be more likely to take him seriously. Elizium23 (talk) 05:26, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
• given ] I think we can take anything Fifelfoo and History2007 say with a grain of salt. Their continual involvement against me in articles they are not even involved in (such as this one) boarders on violations of Misplaced Pages:Harassment via Misplaced Pages:Wikilawyering and WP:GAME. I have already pointed out my federal recognized disability (Hyperkinesis aka ADHD] here on this board and my yelling in all caps is demonstrated of frustration at the community letting things get to the level of ] while banning perfectly good administrators like User:Will_Beback/Barnstars for which on the surface appears by comparison to be very minor infractions.--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Bruce, I strongly recommend that you read WP:HA#NOT (part of the harrassment policy) and WP:Wikilawyering#Misuse of the term, because your repeated citation of these terms seems to reveal an incomplete understanding of their application. Elizium23 (talk) 06:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
    • read WP:HOUND: "Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. This should always be done carefully, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight." Given in ] History2007 in stated "I have not looked at any of the sources discussed here" I think per WP:DUCK I have per WP:HOUND the right to point out possible WP:GAME issues with some involved editors. --BruceGrubb (talk) 07:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
      • As I stated at the beginning, I received a message asking for me to comment here. Leave it at that. History2007 (talk) 07:58, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support Seems to have no understanding of WP:FRINGE or WP:UNDUE and argues interminably, tiring out other users. Mathsci (talk) 07:41, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  • This quote is straight from Oxford University Press reference I am using in my version:

    conspiracy theory n (1909) the theory that an event or phenomenon occurs as a result of a conspiracy between interested parties. Originally a neutral term, but more recent usage (dating from around the mid 1960s) is often somewhat derogatory, implying a paranoid tendency to see the hand of some malign covert agency in any unexplained event. The derivative conspiracy theorist is first recorded in the 1960s — Example — 1975 New York Times: Conspiracy theorists contend that two of the men have strong resemblances to E. Howard Hunt Jr. and Frank A Sturgis, convicted in the Watergate break-in.

  • Kindly explain given the parts that I have bolded just what I don't understand about WP:FRINGE or WP:UNDUE and while you are at it explain this edit ] where I expressly state in the editor comment "often not sometimes. Let's admit that the majority of the time it is used negatively". Given some of the comments here, I have to ask how many of the editors coming here actually went to the Conspiracy theory article to see what the sam hill was going on?--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Interjection: Bruce, what does "rubutle" mean? Did you mean "rebuttal"? Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
    • This thread is about user edit behavior, not content. Long content based discussions are not really needed here. And of course, the issue of WP:Walls of text had been brought up in previous discussions. History2007 (talk) 08:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
      • History2007, you came here without doing any research and made comments effectively blind.Talk:Conspiracy_theory/Archive_16#Definitions_of_conspiracy_theory shows that there at least one time a more neutral definition of conspiracy theory existed and conspiracy theory in that context is being looked at again a point continually ignored by the OP in what several of the editors on the talk page have viewed as an effort to POV the article. When a lead that has Oxford University Press, Edinburgh University Press, Ashgate Publishing, Peter Lang, and Wiley-Blackwell backing up its statements is being reverted or called WP:FRINGE or WP:UNDUE I have a right to call the editors making these claims out on the carpet for it.

        Also please stop using WP:WALLOFTEXT as short hand for WP:TLDR; they are not the same thing. As the second essay notes "A common mis-citation of this essay is to ignore the reasoned and actually quite clear arguments and requests for response presented by an unnecessarily wordy editor with a flippant "TL;DR" in an attempt to discredit and refuse to address their strongly-presented ideas and/or their criticism of one's own position. This is a four-fold fallacy: ad hominem, appeal to ridicule, thought-terminating cliché, and simple failure to actually engage in the debate because one is supposedly too pressed for time to bother, the inverted version of proof by verbosity."--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:32, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

        • I am going stop now, given that I just said this thread is about "edit patterns" not "content" and received a response about content. Regarding your statement that "you have to ask what really is going on?"... who knows, may be it is a cons... Let me not even finish that. I will stop now. History2007 (talk) 08:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
          • As pointed out by Unscintillating, the OP had problems with an ipso facto case of inaccuracy. Instead of jumping in blind you should have at least done research to see if you really had an apples to apples or an apples to orange comparison. User:warshy stated "He (Ie me) has brought overwhelmingly reliable sources in support for all the changes that he haa made so far" a point as stated below Mystichumwipe, Mystylplx, and Rklawton also agree with. Even Nuujinn who challenged my sources on primary, secondary, tertiary grounds stated "Bratich is good, acknowledges both meanings." Talk:Conspiracy_theory/Archive_16#Definitions_of_conspiracy_theory--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:25, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support topic ban as a minimum per the above examples of sustained edit warring on this issue. The extraordinary badgering of editors here (which may well be an attempt to generate a WP:CHUNK) and unjustified claims of harassment indicates that there are some more significant behavioral issues though. Nick-D (talk) 08:45, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I've just remembered that I (and several other editors) have been involved in a content dispute with Bruce in the World War II article recently. The relevant talk page thread is here, and Bruce started a discussion at WP:RSN which is archived here. His content in relation to this topic (he's arguing that a World War II-era American propaganda movie should be used to reference a view that the war started in 1931, and has kept on doing so despite a near total lack of support for this position - complete with all caps shouting initially) appears similar to that on conspiracy theories. As such, I think that we may need a bigger picture solution here. Nick-D (talk) 08:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
    • I would like to again mention that the RSN for Is Why We Fight series reliable source for views of US 1942-1945? was archived by an involved editor against the idea after in just over three hours effectively short circuiting any meaningful discussion on the topic. As I said after I unarchived it and works by the University Press of Kentucky, University of North Carolina Press, Columbia University Press, and Psychology Press were produced supporting my contention the work was reliable "If anyone of us editors could close of a thread whenever the mood hit us then RSN would NOT have any meaning and issues of WP:GAME would pop up like ducks in a shooting gallery."--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Bruce, that discussion continued for two days, then you threw up your hands with "Let the thread be archived by the bot" when you still did not get your way. No matter how many times you keep repeating it, the source is not reliable for establishing the beginning of the war. — The Hand That Feeds You: 16:41, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
• BruceGrubb was topic banned from Christianity topics for a long-term pattern of disrupting discussions with "Ididnthearthat"-style behaviour and pushing of fringe ideas. A few weeks later he was back here at the noticeboards, and there was a consensus that he had been disrupting a discussion about WWII with just the same kind of behaviour. Now he's showing that same behaviour on yet another, unrelated discussion. This does not seem to be topic-specific, but a more deep-seated problem with BruceGrubb's approach to disputes in general. In this sense, we might need to resort to blocks (starting medium-length and then quickly escalating) rather than topic bans. Or a general "parole" kind of personalized discretionary sanction (i.e. any admin can quickly topic-ban him from any new discussion on the first signs of disruption). At this time, I'd be prepared to make a start with a block. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  • evidence outside of Prelude to war as well as evidence regarding reliability for the context within the limited constraints expressly stated (ie US views of 1942-1945) has been ignored. University Press of Kentucky, University of North Carolina Press, Columbia University Press, and Psychology Press all show the Prelude to War was possibly reliable for the contex I want to use it in but any meaningful discuss of those source was short circuited the continual archiving in what IMHO comes off as WP:GAME. The Sept 18, 1931 date as a possible start for WWII had been noted in other even more reliable sources and yet this NPOV fact is not in the current version.

    "While some historians argue that the war started on 18 September 1931 when Japan occupied Manchuria..." Cheng, Chu-chueh (2010) The Margin Without Centre: Kazuo Ishiguro Peter Lang who is referencing Ghuhl, Wernar (2007) Imperial Japan's World War Two Transaction Publishers pg 7. Last time, I checked Peter Lang and Transaction Publishers were not considered fringe publishers. How much we give to that position is a WP:WEIGHT issue not a WP:FRINGE one.--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support, basically. Mathsci above says it exactly. I'm a bit sceptical about topic-banning as a universal solution to disruptive editors, and Fut.Perf.'s suggestion about a personal "parole" for disruption might be better for the project as a whole. Tom Harrison 10:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  • As mentioned below User:warshy supports my edits. His exact words on the matter are "Let me point out here that the work and research that BruceGrubb has been doing on this topic is outstanding in my view. I completely agree with all the changes he has made so far, that have considerably improved the article in terms of a neutral point of view, and of the overall quality of the article, making it much more suitable for the removal of 'American specific' tag that is the header of this section. He has brought overwhelmingly reliable sources in support for all the changes that he haa made so far, and that considerably improve and enhance the overall quality of information available on WP, in my view." (warshytalk 14:16, 29 May 2012 (UTC))--BruceGrubb (talk) 13:57, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
• I don't know how I feel about the proposed topic ban. Bruce certainly can come across as if he's trying to have a reasonable debate. But, I have been the most vocal critic of his proposed changes on the conspiracy theory page, and he (with the support of Mystichumwipe, who, IMO, appears to support the changes because he is a 9/11 conspiracy theorist, and this revised definition makes the term appear less of a pejorative) arbitrarily made the changes under the guise of being bold. Bruce's changes on the page were not entirely unreasonable, but they fail to include some critical changes that I feel are absolutely essential, and, more importantly, he made the changes where there clearly was not a consensus to do so. Regardless of what decision is made here, I do think we need some additional voices on the Conspiracy Theory talk page, because I am making no headway with Mystichumwipe and am quickly running out of patience!JoelWhy (talk) 12:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. I have only just been alerted to this discussion, thus my delay in responding.

  Firstly, nearly all participants upon the discussion board of this article have commented upon the valuable and extremely good sourcing by BruceGrubb of material for this topic. Even those who were strongly opposed to the arguments of him, myself and others (viz. myself Mystichumwipe , Mystylplx, Rklawton and warshy) have commented upon the excellence of his research and sourcing. That includes John Shandy and JoelWhy. So I am surprised that Jayjg has accused him of "using OR, poor sources", and I think that this complaint is completely ungrounded in fact. (Oxford University Press, Edinburgh University Press, Ashgate Publishing, Peter Lang, and Wiley-Blackwell can hardly be called "poor sources"?!!! :-o)

  As regards the accusation of "violating WP:UNDUE in an attempt to 'rehabilitate' the common understanding of the meaning of the phrase"...etc, that also I regard as a false claim. One that has been repeatedly answered but sadly to no avail. I think that's a strawman argument, as I've recently explained on the discussion board. In reality the discussion has never been about "rehabilitating" the term but distinguishing between the two definitions and usages, which the article for long has failed to do.

  BruceGrubb has been civil and polite at all times, only recently showing the frustration here quoted and this came ONLY AFTER what I see as the disruptive behaviour of two editors (Tom Harrison and Calton) who without any recent involvement in the recent discussions, ignored a request to bring any issues to the talk board before reverting, and instead went ahead and reverted ALL BruceGrubb's edits which even the main antagonist in discussions has admitted he only had one "small component" of disagreement with.

  Interestingly Jayjg himeslf has shown to be in error about the definition and usage of this term on two occassions, so his personal viewpoint about all this I consider suspect and this requesting of a topic ban against BruceGrubb I feel should therefore be questioned by fair-minded editors regarding its appropriateness. It seems to me that Jayjg really has taken acception to BG's point of view of the source material, NOT his conduct in appplying that.

  Finally I take issue with the wording of Jayg's complaint: "aided and abetted" smacks of some kind of criminal activity ;-/ and seems a deliberate attempt to imply wrongdoing. As are also his groundless speculations regarding my alleged cautiousness in reverting. In actuality I am merely in agreement with BruceGrubb's understanding, as are at least two or three other editors. I would call my involvement in discussions there with him to be attempting to 'form a consensus' or 'generating agreement' NOT "aiding and abetting". This we have tried to do using reason and discussion supported by verifiable sourcing, which I would have thought should be the backbone of Misplaced Pages editorship. Also the accusations of myself being a conspiracy theorist or a holocaust denier are fallacious ad hominem arguments and I request that they be deleted and a warning be administered to Jayjg and JoelWhy about this.

  Summary: The use of weasel words in this request, coupled with Jayjg's own faulty understanding of the term and the debate about it make this request look to me like some form of intimidation. Researchers of BruceGrubb's calibre should be encouraged and helped if they are thought to be infringing wiki policy, not hounded and censored in this way.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 13:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

  • My comment was not an ad hominem. An ad hominem is "an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it." I was stating my perceived opinion about why you support a particular definition.JoelWhy (talk) 13:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Actually as the Ad hominem article shows it is not quite that simple as the above implies. According to the article Circumstantial, Tu quoque, and Guilt by association all fall under Ad hominem though I don't know how good the connections are. Also you clearly stated "appears to support the changes because he (ie Mystichumwipe) is a 9/11 conspiracy theorist" As I tried to show in Talk:9/11_conspiracy_theories/Archive_30#conspiracy_theory_definition there were a lot of "Conspiracy theories" ranging from Al-Qaeda, a group of some home grown nuts in the Timothy McVeigh mold, or the government being responsible for the 9/11 attacks. One of the theories bore fruit and got called something else but at the time it was first proposed it was a conspiracy theory ("A conspiracy theory is a proposal about a conspiracy that may or may not be true; it has not yet been proven."((sic) Olmsted, Kathryn S. (2009) Real Enemies: Conspiracy Theories and American Democracy, World War I To 9/11 Oxford University Press ASIN: B005ZO8KOY pg 3)). So even if it is later proven to be true that does not change in any way shape or form something's original status as a "conspiracy theory" and that in a nutshell is the problem with the conspiracy theory article as it currently stands.--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
      • As I have pointed out over and over and over and over and over again on the conspiracy theory talk page, my problem with the changes was not that it stated there is an alternate meaning to the term, but that it implied both meanings were on equal footing. This is one of the reasons you should have waited until there was a consensus -- so we could iron out the proposed changes. It is clear you did not understand the point I was trying to make (which may have been partly my fault for not clearly articulating it, I'm not sure). The solution would have been to continue the discussion and iron out the issues rather than deciding that consensus had been reached, despite the clear protests from other editors. (I understand that unanimity is not needed, but when you have 5 editors participating in a discussion, and 2 are objecting, you continue the discussion.)

        I frankly don't think you're helping yourself here. If your intent is to insist you were right to act as you did, it is clear that you're going to be topic banned and you can then feel comfort in believing you were persecuted. However, there is still time to make an appropriate mea culpa, agree that you will not make changes without consensus, and move on. Thus far, you have been completely defensive (which is understandable under the circumstances, but still not helpful.) I have not voted in favor of the topic ban because I do not think it is constructive and I believe you were acting in good faith. However, good faith only takes you so far -- good faith doesn't resolve a misunderstanding of other users' objections. And, arguing that you were completely in the right makes other editors assume a ban is warranted as you are indicating the exact same behavior will continue. JoelWhy? talk 14:53, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. My god, what a can of worms... The professional WP editors warrying here will certainly find my "diffs." I give up. When it comes to WP and all these boards and discussions you just have to be a pro. I am just a little guy, and this technology completely overwhelms me. It is obvious that the subject of this controversy is a very critical and sensitive one for a series of cultural and epistemological "interests." So many, in fact, that I can hardly start to ennumerate them. I am just a critical, skeptical observer on the side, trying to understand how this whole "machine" of knowledge works, and from my isolated, independent point of view, BruceGrubb has done an outstanding job of researching reliable sources and bringing them to bear on the subject. The people trying to ban him here are just trying to silence his powerful argunents against the mainstream and the status quo. It is an uphill battle, and only with a horde of professional editors you can make any progress in these "knowledge" wars. I give up. Good luck to all honest, independent editors lost in this machine, as I am. warshy 15:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support I haven't even bothered looking at things properly. However, I trust Jayjg enough to assume there's sometihng there, and the behaviour of the user in this thread has been utterly ridiculous and clearly illustrates how much of a nuisance he must be. Egg Centric 16:18, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  • If you "haven't even bothered looking at things properly" then why even comment? WP:CON clearly states that it is built on the quality of the arguments and not a vote. Unscintillating has clearly stated Jayjg "tried to remove an ipso facto case of inaccuracy regarding Conspiracy theory from the WP:Inaccuracy essay after Bruce Grubb mentioned the essay in another context." See for the restore by User:Bagumba (] with the comment "this is an essay about how to handle claims of inaccuracy, please describe the issue instead of just censoring it)") and then by Unscintillating ] with the comment "the claim of inaccuracy exists ipso facto, please take opinions about the evidence elsewhere)" Again per Misplaced Pages:CON#Reaching_consensus_through_editing "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus." Jayjg did not have consensus regarding his edit and two other editors Bagumba and Unscintillating agreed with my edit. It is beginning to be clear a lot of the editors here are either not aware of this part of WP:CON or choose to ignore it.--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Now that's the pot calling the kettle black. — The Hand That Feeds You: 16:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Why? Because I hope (not expect) if you read my reasoning you will understand how you are coming across... Egg Centric 16:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Unless you are going to provide actual arguments regarding this please don't clutter up this board with your posts. This is not a WP:Forum.--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Support I'm changing my ambivalent stance to a strong support based on this latest revert, in addition to this latest comment he added in the Talk section. As they say, sometimes, if you give a man enough rope, he flogs himself half to death, ties the rope around his neck, climbs onto a 3-legged chair, leaps off, and shoots himself in the head simultaneously for good measure. (I believe there's a more succinct version of this phrase, but I can't think of it at the moment...) JoelWhy? talk 17:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support ban on Fringe topics, broadly construed. Due to ongoing WP:IDHT, tendentious editing and a general inability to accept consensus not in his favor, Bruce seems unable to operate in these areas without entrenching his position. — The Hand That Feeds You: 17:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support - based on the statements of others above, and on Bruce's own comments like at User talk:BruceGrubb#Conspiracy theory. Bruce seems incapable of believing that his conduct is unacceptable, and seems at this point to almost instantly go on the counter-offensive, accusing the people who, like Tom Harrison in the section linked to, politely advise him that his conduct has violated the rules here. At this point, given the pattern of behavior in general, and his apparent inability to even acknowledge that his conduct might be problematic, I have no reason to believe Bruce is sufficinetly objective to be able to contribute to this material in accord with WP:POV, and he seems unwilling or unable to acknowledge that problem. John Carter (talk) 17:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support - per this talk page edit and his bizarre misinterpretation of "consensus by editing". To me that seems to call for even stricter measures because it's not limited to a single topic but shows a general misconception of how Misplaced Pages operates. He is unable or unwilling to accept that his preferred version does not have consensus, to put it mildly, and he is edit-warring to still have it his way. While he may actually have a point regarding content, his behavior is simply unacceptable. Basically, what JoelWhy said about rope. Huon (talk) 17:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
• Neutral - This could go either direction and not be a bad decision, really. A topic ban was something I felt would be a bit harsh at this point on top of the last topic ban, and suggest that other possible options are there if the community wishes to take that direction, but the original diffs shown by Jayjig are strong enough to cause serious doubts to the editors ability to just drop things and move on or at least cool off. Perhaps the encourage ment they need is a ban. I support whatever admin decides.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:15, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Blocked

Since BruceGrubb has continued revert-warring on conspiracy theory even while this discussion was ongoing , – and less than a day after coming back from another block for the same issue –, and also because his behaviour in the discussion above has again crossed the line into the bizarre, displaying all the conduct problems people have noted as problematic on previous occasions, I have blocked him, for an initial period of a week. I hope this discussion can in the meantime help to clarify whether more topic bans or more blocks will be the best means of dealing with him in the longer run. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Indef block - but not a ban - if given a topic ban, I would expect he is going to keep on with the cycle of latch on to {{insert crazy subject here}}, make david icke type edits, get a new topic ban... However I do feel he's editing in good faith. Weighing these two things together I believe he ought to be indefinitely blocked from editing, but permitted to suggest edits using his talk page and generally try to talk folk around into unblocking him. No reason to think he can't reform, seems smart enough. Egg Centric 22:42, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Intelligence isn't enough to be a successful Wikipedian. You must also have social competence, e.g., an ability to understand other people's state of mind. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I could understand a ban from editing articles, but not talk pages, noticeboards, and the like. I might even support it. But WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:TE might still be problems there. Limiting him to his user talk page would be in effect giving him his own soapbox, which I would find unacceptable. Discretionary sanctions might be reasonable, but that is really only in the scope of ARBCOM. I honestly don't know what would be best, other than, maybe, discretionary sanctions, including potentially being blocked from topics or articles for a set length of time. But like I said, honestly, discretionary sanctions seems to me to be the only option that I would think might really work. John Carter (talk) 00:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

The community can and does establish discretionary sanctions regarding topic areas, consider the community general discretionary sanctions regarding caste, sub-groups and politics in subcontinental articles. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I said that based on the response I received from ArbCom regarding such matters. More or less, they indicated that one's admin's discretion might be found indiscreet by another admin and overturned. I certainly believe that might be possible here, and I am not looking forward to seeing it. John Carter (talk) 23:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I think WhatamIdoing said it gently, and correctly in the context of WP:CIR - which is only an essay of course, but can yet be used as a shorthand in these cases. The hand writing is on the wall that this is going to lead to an indef-block sooner or later. The path to that seems non-deterministic, as recent events have shown, but it is heading in that direction. The path may not be clear, but the destination seems likely. History2007 (talk) 08:44, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that Bruce is on a very clear path to an indefinite duration block. I'm not sure if this is warranted yet, but it probably would be if he returns to the same conduct after the current block expires. I think that Egg Centric is probably right about what Bruce is likely to do; I just hope that he doesn't do this. Nick-D (talk) 11:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that his behavior makes me think he's quickly heading towards a full ban. He's not making the types of edits which clearly warrant such a ban, yet, but it appears he thinks he's merely a victim in all this, meaning his behavior is not likely to change. Still, I'd love to be proven wrong as he has the potential to be a valuable contributor. JoelWhy? talk 15:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Why this negative speculation? Is that fair? Or helpful? Just leave the word 'yet' out of your sentence and what is left is the reality of the current situation. As regards the question of victimhood, I myself think he has been treated unfairly. E.g. the comment of support for the blocking by Eggcentric with an admitted complete ignorance of the case. Do you Joel, think that 'support' for blocking was fair? Do you not agree that if Tom Harrison and Calton hadn't reverted ALL his work without first discussing it as requested, this situation would not have occured. That behaviour was the catalyst, wasn't it. I find it ironic that such disruptive behaviour by those two uninvolved editors is not even being acknowledged or mentioned. Then the framing of the complaint against him by Jayjg in this block request? Do you think they were fairly framed? Do you think the language (e.g "aided and abetted by...") wasn't loaded language? That these aspects have not been acknowledged or taken into account I think is not a sign of fair treatment and I feel quite naturally lend support to a quite justified feeling of being victimised. --Mystichumwipe (talk) 15:31, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Was my support for blocking fair?! Of course it was! The first thing Bruce did upon returning from his block is to post on the Talk page that, because his edits had not yet been reverted, this "silence" meant there was now a consensus. It was absolutely outrageous. The gall of him to complain that others were "wikilawyering" to then point to a policy that clearly was not intended to mean you also ignore the discussion on the talk page protesting said changes. And then to engage in yet another edit war, with editors who rightfully reverted his edits where there clearly was not a consensus; he is not a victim here. He did this to himself. JoelWhy? talk 15:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

When one of the major problems is WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, what good is mentoring? Bruce's user talk page now has a "retired" banner on it (User talk:BruceGrubb) so this discussion may be moot; on the other hand, users unretire all the time. My read of the situation is that if he returns, Bruce will earn himself a full site ban in short order; a topic ban, mentorship, or parole might save him from this fate, but does anyone want to take on the task of policing his edits? I certainly don't. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:28, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

In any case, the original Jayjg request is still pending, hence I will request a decision on that, so we can move on. History2007 (talk) 13:26, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I seriously suggest a mentor as John Carter has suggested. It may not work, or it may be the best thing for him. At least make the suggestion. Mentors do not always work out in this type of situation but it could be tried.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:09, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Bruce does still have e-mail enabled, so it would be possible to contact him with the proposal. I just wonder whether we should do it now, or perhaps wait for someone to suggest themselves as a possible mentor for him. John Carter (talk) 20:25, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Request for admin decision on the original Jayjg proposal

Given that threads do get archived, and that there have been no major new revelations for about a day now, I think Jayjg's original request (a conspiracy topic ban) deserves a decision. The discussion on that has produced a number of votes and views (11 to 2) and a decision may be appropriate in any case. And that may reduce further friction if Bruce unretires. Hence I would suggest a decision on that, given the number of comments, etc. so we can move on. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 13:00, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree that, if Bruce is to return, it would probably be best for both him and the rest of us if this question were decided before that. It would probably be instrumental in his own decision, and I think others might be perhaps influenced by discussion about his possible continued retirement if we were to wait. John Carter (talk) 20:28, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Logged ban per iar since no one else appears to be doing anything with it. Nobody Ent 00:20, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

A recent software change causes untruths in old entries in editing histories.

• For example, in http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=History_of_spectroscopy&offset=&limit=500&action=history , the oldest 3 edits are shown as "(empty)", but actually they have text content. The "(empty)" should be replaced by "(unknown)", for edits made before page length was recorded in edit histories. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Same problem here. Can someone who knows how bugzilla works please file a bug? Jenks24 (talk) 07:16, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
• Despite the badly chosen name administrators are not sysops. We have zero control over the way that MediaWiki works. The correct place for this is either Project:Village Pump (technical) or (even better) the user talk page of one of the (active) MediaWiki developers, since they don't necessarily monitor even the technical discussion fora on the English Misplaced Pages. Uncle G (talk) 10:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  • The best place to file bugs has always been Bugzilla, not a user's talkpage. ^demon 03:44, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
• Thanks. I have copied this discussion to Misplaced Pages:Village pump (technical)#A recent software change causes untruths in old entries in editing histories.. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Topic ban of Eric1985

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

We didn't really finish this discussion - see Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive235#Application to End Topic Ban. To cut a long story short, Eric1985 was indefinitely topic banned from Israel/Palestine issues, primarily for running an off-wiki blog that encouraged its readers to edit Misplaced Pages to fight a perceived bias. The admin that originally topic banned him expressed indifference about ending the ban. Eric1985 has never been a hugely prolific editor and some were concerned that he hasn't amassed enough "good edits" since the ban was implemented. However the discussion ended with a suggestion from User:Jiujitsuguy to modify the topic ban as follows:

We can allow Eric1985 to start editing IP but only talk pages, discussion pages and collaboration pages but not actual articles. Give it two months. If we see good contributions and discussion, we can graduate him to editing articles.

Personally I think this is a great idea but as there were quite a few voices opposing a change to the ban earlier in the discussion I'd like to ensure we have some form of consensus before implementing User:Jiujitsuguy's suggestion. WaggersTALK 09:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Revisiting it a bit early aren't we? Oppose May + 6 = December 2012 Fifelfoo (talk) 09:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with Fifelfoo, its way to early. So I oppose. Also the wikibias canvassing site is still running, (Eric started it and then he said he gave it to someone else) I think Eric1985 should tell us which Misplaced Pages user it is who is now running the website, before we should consider any kind of topic ban is lifted. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Just to be clear, this isn't a revisit. There are two possible ways of interpreting the previous discussion: either it didn't reach a conclusion (in which case it's right to continue it until we do reach a consensus) or it did reach a conclusion, and that conclusion was Jiujitsuguy's suggestion. (It was the last comment left, and went unopposed). So I'm afraid oppose !votes for "revisiting" too early don't wash with me. WaggersTALK 14:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's been over 24 hours and at this rate, this thread's going to be archived without reaching a conclusion just as the previous one did. The only reason that's been given in opposition to Jiujitsuguy's suggestion is that Eric1985 has handed over his blog to someone else and hasn't told us who it is. I'm not convinced that was ever a necessary condition for lifting the ban; any other thoughts? WaggersTALK 20:23, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose as too early. As a comment, two other editors !voted Oppose with the justification that it is too early. JoeSperrazza (talk) 01:13, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Aschwole/User:Nuklear

This discussion came up at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Nuklear. In brief, Aschwole (talk · contribs) admits to being (indefinitely blocked) Nuklear (talk · contribs). Nuklear was blocked in 2009 for copyright violations. Since his reappearance, Aschwole appears to be contributing constructively. Personally, I think they should be allowed to continue to do so, as long as they are not creating copyright violations and/or using pejorative terms. However, since they are technically in violation of the rules, I thought it would be best to open a thread at AN for discussion. TNXMan 18:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Isn't having a name which is a clear homophone of asshole grounds enough for a username block... We do the same thing for clever misspellings of fuck and shit... --Jayron32 22:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

This editor is also a self-confessed sock of User:Yid , so it's instructive to read the thread on that user's talkpage in which he denied knowing that "yid" was an offensive racial slur. Despite AGF, it is hard to see this stance as anything but disingenuous, and it puts the editor's choice of "Aschwole" as a new username into perspective. Further, the SPI was closed because Aschwole is editing non-disruptively, but that was the case with Yid and Nuklear as well, and the volume of warning notices about copyright problems, etc. on their talk pages argues for their really not getting what WP is about. I think an indef block is in order. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:32, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• — KC9TV 07:13, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Scientology

Resolved by motion that:

The restriction imposed on Prioryman (talk · contribs) by Remedy 17 of the Scientology case ("ChrisO restricted") is hereby lifted.

For the Arbitration Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 02:42, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Discuss this

Raheem Kassam

This is a blog relating to the Raheem Kassam article, that may be of interest for somebody who has the time to do so, related to WP:COI - unfortunately I am preparing to go on holiday. Thanks, GiantSnowman 12:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Having read this one, I doubt he meets our notability guidelines, so I've nominated the article for deletion: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Raheem Kassam. Robofish (talk) 16:32, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

IPv6 surprise!

Get ready for this.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:14, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• That's funny; this fix hasn't been implemented over there. Nyttend (talk) 02:59, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
  • That's because *.wmflabs.org sites don't run on the cluster, where Tim's hook function was added. I doubt it's really a big deal. ^demon 03:39, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Yeah, definitely not big, but I'm now tempted to place the "this user deleted the Main Page" userbox on my userpage :-) I thought it meant that any WMF-related wikis would have this function. Nyttend (talk) 03:50, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
• Folks, we've been eyeing and anticipating this for a couple of years, now. This is not something isolated like Pending Changes; IPv6 is global (i.e. throughout all of teh Internets) and was imminently going to be deployed here. We can't hide ourselves from its deployment in the eyes of many onlookers. Whatever bugs that come up in the MediaWiki software as a result should be dealt with quickly and accordingly, as they normally are.

  With IPv6 eventually becoming a reality, we have to again see what works for us and what doesn't. IPv6 addresses are allocated differently from IPv4, and IPv6 ranges will be harder to see (without the appropriate software tools, many of which are out there and easy to access) than IPv4 ranges, but that is something that we have to get accustomed to. We cannot afford to continue living in the past, especially with something as critical as this. --MuZemike 07:15, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

  • It appears you are making counter points to an argument no one has made (at least here). I don't believe anyone has an issue with IPv6 being used in and of itself (though this is the internet and someone probably will) but rather the "oh hey guys we're turning this on in a few days" thing. It would be nice if someone familiar with the technical side (Jasper?) could make some help pages about how to deal with IPv6 addresses (blocking, rangeblocking, etc.) for admins. Killiondude (talk) 23:21, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Some SWMT members have complained on IRC that it's gonna break the bots, the toolserver scripts they use, and confuse admins. User:Jasper Deng/IPv6 has become the main page for IPv6 information for Wikimedia. My main concern is the breakage of our mechanisms like Twinkle and pop-ups.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:37, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Given the vitriol regarding all of the recent software changes as of late, I am anticipating negative responses from them. --MuZemike 07:24, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm very tempted to make a satirical post on the Village pump demanding the reversion of IPv6 until an RFC is held to demonstrate community consensus... But I probably won't. Anomie⚔ 11:57, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I liked the old way better. IPv6 is too confusing. The internet should be reverted until an RfC on Misplaced Pages determines its future. Equazcion 12:03, 3 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Can we at least have a gadget to restore the old functionality?? :P Happy‑melon 12:04, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Sitenotice:POTY2011 round 1 banner

I am a member of POTY committee. As we have some trouble to announce with meta:CentralNotice, will you advertize Round 1 banner(below) on the enwp MediaWiki:Sitenotice (for Login users only) till the centralnotice will come out (or 6 June)? Thanks in advance.--miya (talk) 16:11, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Ontario101 uploads

Can an admin have a look at the image uploads of Ontario101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), they appear to be images uploaded from the web, all without sourcing, they probably all need deleting. Mtking 02:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration motion on decision elements

To provide greater clarity regarding the purpose of each element of an arbitration decision, the following statement is adopted:

Elements of arbitration decisions

For standard hearings, decisions are posted in the form of "Principles", "Findings of Fact", "Remedies" and "Enforcement".

Principles highlight key provisions of policy, procedure, or community practice which are relevant to the dispute under consideration; and, where appropriate, include the Committee's interpretation of such provisions in the context of the dispute.

Findings of fact summarize the key elements of the parties' conduct in the dispute under consideration. Difference links may be incorporated but are purely illustrative in nature unless explicitly stated otherwise.

Remedies specify the actions ordered by the Committee to resolve the dispute under considerations. Remedies may include both enforceable provisions (such as edit restrictions or bans) and non-enforceable provisions (such as cautions, reminders, or admonitions), and may apply to individual parties, to groups of parties collectively, or to all editors engaged in a specific type of conduct or working in a specific area.

Enforcement contains instructions to the administrators responsible for arbitration enforcement, describing the procedure to be followed in the event that an editor subject to a remedy violates the terms of that remedy. Enforcement provisions may be omitted in decisions that contain no independently enforceable remedies.

Additionally, the existing procedure for voting on proposed decisions is modified to replace the first sentence ("For standard hearings, proposed decisions will be posted in the form of 'Principles', 'Findings of Fact', 'Remedies' and 'Enforcement', with a separate vote for each provision.") with the following:

Proposed decisions will be posted with a separate vote for each provision.

For the Arbitration Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 03:02, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Discuss this

reverse Template:Did you know nominations/4 2012 Pulitzer Prize Winners split

George Ho (talk · contribs) is attempting to split WP:DYK the Template:Did you know nominations/4 2012 Pulitzer Prize Winners discussion into 5 different pages. Could an admin please blank and salt Template:Did you know nominations/Malcolm X: A Life of Reinvention, Template:Did you know nominations/The Swerve: How the World Became Modern, Template:Did you know nominations/Water by the Spoonful and Template:Did you know nominations/George F. Kennan: An American Life, which need not be created. It is fairly common policy to debate the propriety of a multiarticle hook in one location and not divide the nomination across multiple discussion pages.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:05, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• Is there a policy or guideline that forbids splitting an active nomination? --George Ho (talk) 05:09, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
  • It it pretty standard to attempt to hold an active debate on one page rather than open four additional ones to do so.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:47, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Which part of policy or guideline? I do not see on in WP:DYK and its Supplemental Rules. How does standardization of common practice and unusuality of splitting matter to you? Is it mentioned somewhere? --George Ho (talk) 05:54, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• In terms of DYK rules, WP:DYKSG, rule C3. The hook as Tony submitted it is perfectly legal: once the three additional article links are subtracted, the hook counts as no more than 162 characters, well under the maximum of 200. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:00, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I get that right now. Then what about splitting an active nomination? --George Ho (talk) 06:26, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)I don't see anything about that pro or con. In DYK, some deference is given to the desires of the creator or nominator. At the very least, a discussion should take place before anything so unusual as a split is done. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:58, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Unfortunately, in this case, this rule wouldn't to me work for this nomination, as I have done the alternatives that would prove pros and cons of this nom. --George Ho (talk) 06:44, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• I honestly don't understand your point. The rule applies here, and Tony's hook was valid under that rule: his request here is reasonable. If you are disagreeing, then I believe you are misinterpreting the intent and application of the rule. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:58, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• All right, I'll rephrase: if subtracting subsequent bolded titles, that would mean subtracting subsequent Pulitzer subjects, leaving one article and one subject counted, am I right? That would be 61 to 95 characters. Nevertheless, the C3 rule isn't that official or absolute yet, isn't it? --George Ho (talk) 07:10, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• No, it's strict character subtraction: you count all the characters in the hook except for those in the additional bolded article titles. Nothing else is subtracted from the total count. So the Pulitzer subjects would definitely count toward the total in this case. The C3 rule is both official and absolute: it explains how you count the characters in a multi-article hook. What makes you think C3 might be optional? It's a DYK rule, as are all those listed on that page. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:23, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• According to WP:DYKSG#Other recurring issues, under G4, supplementary rules are representations of what the consensus accepts, not what the consensus must follow. Under G3, integrating a separately provided rule into main rules must be accepted by consensus. In other words, C3 is not part of the main rules yet but generally acceptable, as long as the rule may not be followed. --George Ho (talk) 07:43, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Nevertheless, T:TDYK considers supplementary rules as "official". --George Ho (talk) 08:46, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• By the way, there are four different pages, not five. Also, Tony gave me these messages. --George Ho (talk) 05:14, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Original page and four additional ones makes five.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:47, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Add Misplaced Pages:Main Page/Errors to your watchlists

Would you agree with me that the front page of this website is rather an important place not to host mistakes and to have content that is as accurate and professional as possible? Then I ask that ever admin within eyeshot of this post add Misplaced Pages:Main Page/Errors to his or her watchlist. I am posting this because tonight is the fifth time I've noticed a mistake or poor content on Misplaced Pages's homepage and posted there. All my prior requests were acted upon. Tonight no one responded at all (the featured article blurb has changed so it is no longer relevant). Each prior time it took hours for my post to be acted upon. So I think it is clear more administrators need to have this page watchlisted.—108.46.98.134 (talk) 05:23, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Evidence requested on past episodes of outing of Wikipedians on off-wiki forums

I'm doing some research on the prevalence of outing of Wikipedians on off-wiki forums, particularly Misplaced Pages Review and Wikipediocracy. I'm seeking to identify occasions when Wikipedians have been outed on such forums, specifically with regard to the posting of legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, or other contact information (per WP:OUTING's definition). I don't need to know the specific details but I would like to determine how often this has happened in the past. If you have any information, please contact me (email is enabled). Prioryman (talk) 13:04, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Have you fulfilled the requirements at meta:Research:Subject_recruitment? Nobody Ent 13:16, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

It's not research into Misplaced Pages or Misplaced Pages editors, so that's not relevant. There's no requirements to fulfil if you want to do some research into off-wiki sites. Prioryman (talk) 13:59, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

If you are doing research which involves contacting Wikimedia project editors or users then you must first notify the Wikimedia Research Committee by describing your project. By posting here, you just contacted Misplaced Pages editors. Nobody Ent 14:25, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Were you planning on simply posting the number of times only or providing information on when and where the incidents occurred (even if they are hidden)? Anything like the latter would be quite an awful thing to post anywhere, potentially making a central repository from which to seek access to the very outed personal information that should not have been revealed in the first place. No matter your intent, I can't help but see this as fraught with potential for bad juju.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk)

Simply the number of times only. There have been a few incidents of which I'm personally aware of Wikipedians being outed on WR and Wikipediocracy. What I'm trying to establish is whether this is an exceptional occurrence, or something that happens on a reasonably frequent basis. Prioryman (talk) 14:12, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be difficult to quantify to an informative number. You'd have to look at the details of each case and what role, if any, the forum played. There's a few instances I can think of where the "outing" has been the work of one person pretty much operating on their own, but of course they've then posted the information to the site as part of their criticism of Misplaced Pages or the person they've outed. But that sort of situation doesn't seem to me to be something which can be avoided except by trying for a sort of code of silence. On the whole, no other sites put much stock in this particular Misplaced Pages norm, in the way e.g. there's a widespread practice in the mainstream news media not to politicize the children of political figures. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 15:12, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Following up on Fuhghettaboutit's comment, what is the purpose of finding out this "number"? More simply, what's the point?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:07, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Does e-mail to other Wikipedians count as an "off-wiki forum", e.g., "Send me an e-mail message if you want to know that editor's identity"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:14, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• It would be a reasonably straightforward exercise to count the number of instances in the various forum archives of posts of identity information about -- or allegedly about -- a Misplaced Pages user. That shouldn't require anybody's permission. Determining whether the posted information was accurate, and identifying instances where identity information was posted but subsequently redacted, is an entirely different matter. That gets into privacy -- and could mean, in effect, re-outing the user. --Orlady (talk) 16:20, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good idea to seek more evidence about the outings. I mean, whoever found his WP alias suddenly - for lack of better terminology - got his or her cover blown despite a wish to remain private already suffered enough with that. Especially for those editors who have butted heads with someone who is later determined to get back at him/her off-wiki. I myself have gone to great lengths to ensure my identity remains sealed, such as asking not to log in the attendance sheet at our local WikiCon two weekends ago.--Eaglestorm (talk) 16:52, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Name Change

Not a big thing. I am simply retiring my current account and starting a new one, simply because I hate my current username. Just didn't want any administrators thinking I was socking, so i'm announcing it here. My new name will be User: Ice Penguin. One pier (Logbook) 18:05, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Administrative backlog