Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:10, 27 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 82 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)

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

(Initiated 32 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)

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 12 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 12 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

Authority of Wikiprojects

Do the WikiProjects have some authority over the articles they claim to cover? My question is if I create a Wikiproject "Antarctica" which claims to cover all "Antarctica-related" articles, do I (and others in "WikiProject Antarctica") have the authority to arrive at some decision based on a discussion in our Project's talk page and alter all existing articles accordingly without a discussion in their corresponding talk pages? - InarZan Verifiable 10:59, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Consensus needs to be established among the community - whether that be determined on an individual talk page, at the WikiProject's talk page, or a noticeboard such as this. GiantSnowman 11:01, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. If consensus was reached among participants in the project it could be rolled out on articles within its scope, but very cautiously. If it's a trivial issues (for instance, a new infobox or the removal of one deemed not useful, changes to structures of categories or a coordinated effort to remove references to a clearly unreliable source) it's unlikely that there would be any problems. However, decisions made through discussions in limited forums such as individual Wikiprojects obviously can't override Misplaced Pages-wide policies or guidelines (though some policies and guidelines have arisen from discussions which began as part of a Wiki Project's activities). Why do you ask? Nick-D (talk) 11:07, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikiprojects provide a coordinating function, not an ownership/power function (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with BWilkins. Most articles can fall within more than one Wikiproject, for a start. At best they can make recommendations. As Nick-D says it might be possible to make modest changes, but not if they override our policies and general guidelines. Wikiprojects really have no authority, and if editors at a particular article disagreed and were arguing within our policies and guidelines even on trivial issues there might be a problem. Dougweller (talk) 14:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

This almost certainly relates to the OP's unwillingness to accept the consensus in of this discussion at the India Project talkpage. That concerned photo montages of people in Indian caste/community/ethnic group articles, which cause all sorts of problems as highlighted in the discussion. It is a highly specific matter and common sense dictates that does not apply for those groups that, for example, exist in notable numbers in present-day Pakistan as well as in India.

I think it slightly disingenuous of the OP not to make this specific situation clear, nor to mention that when they refer to "article talk pages", they mean Talk:Saint Thomas Christians. Of course, I could be wrong about the intent, but any reasonable person with knowledge of the OP's recent behaviour and the WT:INB discussion would likely come to the same conclusion as I do. - Sitush (talk) 14:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Examples of the unwillingnes to accept are here, here and here. I could list a lot more - it has been going on for quite a while and these links are just for today. - Sitush (talk) 14:25, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

(od) I'm not sure why this is being brought up here. In the discussion at WT:IN (here), there was little support for including collections of photographs of individual members of a community in the info box. A user has initiated an RfC for wider input (here) and we need but wait for that discussion to be completed. Seems like healthy procedure to me. --regentspark (comment) 15:57, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Dear RegentsPark, if you are saying that the discussion on this issue is ongoing, can you revert this edit as an admin? Will you justify an aggressive removal of concerned content while the discussion is still going on? - InarZan Verifiable 16:34, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

InarZan, the current local consensus is that there should be no collections of people images in these articles. Perhaps the wider consensus from the RfC will be different. If it is, then the collections can be added back but, in the meantime, we'll stick with local consensus. --regentspark (comment) 20:02, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Jumping back to what Nick-D said about the general issue (and without any intent to comment upon or imply anything about what's been said since Nick's comment), the policy controlling the relationship between projects and the larger community is set out in WP:CONLIMITED:

Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope.

While the "for instance" example is negative, the positive is also true: participants in a WikiProject cannot establish policies or guidelines for articles within its scope without following the proper procedures at WP:POLICY to notify and involve the entire community in the policymaking process. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

This discussion is basically triggered by the extension of local consensus in WP:INB to all the articles related to ethnic groups in India (these articles are of course part of other projects too). Though, these consensuses are not intended to breach any wp policies, they seem to act as proxy-policies which may or may not be healthy for Misplaced Pages. Some editors suggest that these proxies are necessary to deal with the peculiar nature of Indian castes or ethnic groups. In my opinion, if a local-consensus is to be used as a proxy-policy, it should be comprehensive; wide participation should be ensured (threshold should be set), a poll process should be there and finally the discussion should be closed by an un-involved administrator, preferably an outsider to the project. -AshLey 08:56, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

There is more information at the official guideline, WP:WikiProject Council/Guide, especially the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Council/Guide#Advice_pages section. But the summary is this: A WikiProject is (just) a group of editors who want to work together, and no little group of editors gets to boss around anyone else merely by virtue of calling themselves a "WikiProject". WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:12, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Generalities that apply to most Wikiprojects are not very helpful when dealing with Indian caste-related articles, and to that extent, user:InarZan has been disingenuous in framing his RfC statement. His interest has nothing to do with Antarctica. Indian caste-related articles are notorious for rampant POV, for unimaginable puffery, and for unmitigated abuse of every Misplaced Pages guideline related to reliable sourcing. These articles (as far as I can tell) are the only ones that come with a "castewarning" template (that give attending admins some discretionary powers). See below. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:54, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages community has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on any editor who is active on any page about social groups, explicitly including caste associations and political parties, related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The discussion leading to the imposition of these sanctions can be read here. Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Misplaced Pages:General sanctions.

I'm trying very hard to think of a reason not to just indefinitely ban InarZan2 from St. Thomas Christians... I'll sleep on it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:08, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, there has been some rope and one of the others referred to in that message has already suffered. Nonetheless, I have learned something from this thread. I accept but am disappointed that it seems to be the case that the lunatics can run the asylum, that a project cannot limit the consensus of the wider community when disruption etc is plain to see. Ye other specialist projects can somehow create accepted notability guidelines that extend the consensus, eg: the one that assumes notability of nonentity cricketers who are named in the team for a single first class match yonks ago, do not play and are never heard of again. Even some regulars at WP:CRIC have acknowledged that this seems weird but, of course, it is a nice quirk of the system if you are a cricket buff. - Sitush (talk) 02:01, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think lunatics are running the asylum is true. OP has carefully constructed a question in general terms and is getting very general answers. I doubt if anyone will answer no to a question of the sort "If montages are accepted in several other wikiprojects can WP:India craft an exception to their use?" The way the question is crafted is itself, in my opinion, disruptive. --regentspark (comment) 17:35, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I apologise, in particular to InarZan. My reference to lunatics running the asylum was not a reference to InarZan's query but rather to the notion that a highly specific constraint regarding an existing community consensus, determined by consensus of those involved with a specialist project, can somehow be disregarded by people who know absolutely sod all about the issue and have no experience of it. Yep, this is a challenge of sorts to the boundaries of consensus and I accept that I am out on a limb, but my critical point was that, for example, the Cricket project appear to have been able to usurp WP:GNG and the same applies with regard to the long-running saga of whether or not every school is notable ... yet the India Project gets a kind of hammering despite being one of those huge backwaters that 99.9 per cent of regular contributors really do not want to engage with. Again, I am phrasing this poorly but I am hoping that the gist will get across. It is not worth me spending hours and hours justifying my comments, so people can either take them or leave them.

There is (indeed was, when InarZan posed here) a RfC in progress and although I consider the question posed to be malformed, the outcome will surely suffice for those who quote the various policies etc regarding acceptance by the wider community. Too many contributors here are focussing on the theory and ignoring the blatant underhanded-ness that was implicit in InarZan's query. RegentsPark describes that query as "disruptive", I agree and it seems from current comments that some others do also. To be sure, some good has come of that - and I am grateful for the comments and the expansion of my policy knowledge etc - but even after the disingenuous-ness has been made clear, there appears to be a meta-discussion going on that, yes, is interesting but is not addressing the very real, very substantial problems that relate to the core issue: how do we cope with these India-related articles, and in particular given the WMF "push" there and the often horrendous policy abuses that appear to be burgeoning due to that. - Sitush (talk) 01:54, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

• Not looking at whatever the India-issue is, WikiProjects have *no* authority (as others have said). It is a problem that many participants do feel that whatever WikiProject they are interested in has authority and attempt to assert it. Bzzt. In theory, WikiProjects serve a function, but this issue is major across The Project. It needs confronting on sight. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 07:32, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

  "Not looking at whatever the India-issue is, ...?" Well, then what you've said is vacuous or trivial, because this RfC is all about the India issue, even if it disingenuously avoids mentioning it. It is posted by an SPA who has less than a hundred contributions, all to Indian castes. Do you expect people to drum up a consensus each time a mischief maker challenges the same issue, but on a new caste page? Given that there are tens of thousands of castes, will you coming to bat for Misplaced Pages's core values each time? What about the castewarning template I've posted above, shouldn't you be confronting it on sight? Talking in vacuous generalities is easy, like you've done, to boot with sophomoric edit summaries. Dealing with the problem is hard. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:19, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

  I was addressing the OP's question, as did others. That's a canard that's regularly trotted out and needs beating with a stick. I've no doubt there's a further issue re castes. Good luck with that. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 08:46, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It is true that a WikiProject, being inanimate, has no authority; in fact no will. However project members absolutely have authority which derives from the same policies which empower all editors; and no more. After that, specifics are necessary to further qualify. For example a community discussion conducts on a relevant talk page, which often my be the talk page of an associated WikiProject. If such an RfC closes with specific adopted criteria, project members are compelled by consensus to enact that criteria. And non-members are equally as expected to follow suit. This summarizes my understanding to this regard; which you may promptly disregard if you prefer. My76Strat (talk) 08:26, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Mebbe sometimes, but see WP:CONLIMITED and WP:CCC. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 08:46, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Here's a real example I would like to see addressed: members of WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers have created lead section recommendations in WP:ACTOR which in practice have superseded the lead recommendations in WP:LEAD. Originally, I think they were only intended to supplement WP:MOSINTRO, but in practice they conflict with WP:LEADSENTENCE and possibly Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Biographies. Contrast this with the guidance provided byWikiProject Film in MOS:FILM, specifically WP:FILMLEAD, which appropriately supplements WP:LEAD rather than restricting (or rewriting it) like the Actors and Filmmakers project. I believe that WikiProject Film has gone about this the correct way, while WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers has exceeded its remit. Viriditas (talk) 10:43, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

A project can amplify and/or clarify existing policies, such as the WP:MOS. However, the principle of most-restrictive applies: a project cannot override existing policies. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:12, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

But this is not an instance of a policy overriding a policy, but of an informal WikiProject guideline (WP:ACTOR) overriding Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Lead section in practice. In fact, the MOS:LEAD has been supplanted by WP:ACTOR in actors and filmmakers articles since around 2010, and one can actually demonstrate this with real examples. Viriditas (talk) 08:36, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Call for 3 admins to close upcoming verifiability RfC

Hello everyone. I'm currently mediating a MedCab case about the lede of Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, where we are in the process of drafting an RfC to submit for community comment. We are very nearly done, and we are making the last few finishing tweaks to the RfC page before it is ready to go up live. One of the things that the participants have been discussing is how it should be closed, and who should close it. There is a consensus in the mediation that the RfC should be closed by a panel of three uninvolved administrators, and there is also a rough consensus that we should name them before the RfC starts, to help avoid any drama when it is time to close it. Also, to make sure things remain impartial, we want to avoid choosing admins ourselves, hence this noticeboard post.

So, would any admins be willing to volunteer to close the upcoming verifiability RfC? Ideally, you should:

• Have no previous involvement in any of the debates over the lede of Misplaced Pages:Verifiability
• Be available around the last week of July, which is when the RfC will likely finish
• Be willing to take the time to sift through the hundreds of comments that we will likely get, and weigh the different arguments

If anyone fits this description and would like to take this on, just leave a message below.

Also, if anyone has any comments or questions about asking three uninvolved admins to close the RfC, or about naming them before the RfC starts, then the feedback would be very welcome. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius 14:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• Unless there are objections, I'm available to help closing the RfC. I can't remember having expressed an opinion about the issue before.  Sandstein  17:41, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

  Thank you! I'll let the mediation participants know that you're willing to volunteer. So that just leaves two more admins to find. :) — Mr. Stradivarius 01:30, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

--Melburnian (talk) 04:58, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

No problem - I just assumed that was a mistake. I think we've all done a fat-fingered rollback or two in our wiki-careers. :) — Mr. Stradivarius 16:47, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, it looks like we are be all out of admins - though there must be a few out there that haven't expressed an opinion on the verifiability issue yet. I think I'll wait for another day or so, and then I might have to talk to the mediation participants about contingency plans. Again, if you're willing to take this on, just leave a message below. — Mr. Stradivarius 16:47, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I am not entirely comfortable with announcing the closing trio in advance of the RfC. I think you should allow admins to respond via email, make your selections but withhold any announcement until such time as the request is ready to close. IMO - My76Strat (talk)

I'm not entirely 100% certain I've never opined on the matter, but I certainly did not participate extensively in the discussion nor did I get into any sort of dispute over it. If you still need admins, wave at me. — Coren  23:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll volunteer to help. However, if you already have three, let them : ) - jc37 23:28, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you to Sandstein, Coren, and jc37, for indicating that you are willing to be one of the three closers. It looks like the mediation participants are happy to accept your kind offer, and so it seems that there are no objections on this side of things. I will keep you updated on the progress of the discussion, and of any other matters that may affect the closing of the RfC.

  To My76Strat - I'm a little bit unsure as to what you mean by "make your selections", but if you are talking about mediation participants choosing particular admins, then this was already rejected on the mediation talk page. The consensus was that we should only specify the admins in advance if those admins were self-selected. The argument goes that this way, the participants can avoid any allegations that they are selecting admins based on personal preference, while still getting the benefits that would come from choosing the closing admins in advance (i.e. minimizing the risk that a close might be disputed).

  I'm not saying that this is necessarily correct, just that it is the consensus that the mediation participants agreed on. If there is any objection to this, then I think probably the best place to discuss it would be the RfC talk page, after the RfC has been made live. We will have plenty of time to discuss it, after all. Or, if you meant something else with your comment and I've missed the point completely, please let me know. — Mr. Stradivarius 15:06, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Do WP:BLP and WP:OUTING now no longer apply to people admins dislike?

Since when has Misplaced Pages's response to sockpuppeting been to post a page detailing the sockmaster's real name (which we know "because he accidentally used his own name to sign up for Gmail"), his employer's address and an exhortation to write to his employer? Normally on finding something like this I'd have G10'd it and indefblocked all those concerned, but given that (a) it's existed for six months without any apparent concern from anyone, (b) at least one of the names in the edit history is someone I generally consider sensible and not the type of person to join a vindictive harassment campaign against someone singled out as an Enemy Of The Wiki, and (c) it's currently linked from a high profile RFA (along with a description of the subject as "thieving, litigious, lying scum") without any of the 60+ participants there raising any objection, maybe there's something I'm missing. In the absence of something I'm missing, it certainly looks to me like in this case The Misplaced Pages Community™ has lost whatever tenuous claim to the moral high ground it still retained. – iridescent 15:18, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Dunno about the Gmail stuff but with one account, the person appears to have intentionally volunteered their identity on wikipedia, which generally means it isn't outing to mention it. Linking it to other accounts may or may not be okay, I don't know enough about the history to say. Nil Einne (talk) 16:01, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it's relevant information, and he revealed it himself; if he turns out not to like it that's just tough for him. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:07, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

By the time a banned sockpuppeter has taken it to the point where a long-term abuse page on him becomes necessary, I don't see why they should be entitled to any expectation to continued protection under our normal privacy rules (provided they are an adult person and mentally sane). This person consciously chose to raise an all-out fight against this project, even trying to blackmail to community to let him back in with the threat of more socking. He also not only self-disclosed his identity, but deliberately used it in an attempt to influence editing here . If the personal information bothers him, he knows what he has to do to be let back into anonymity here. Under these conditions I don't see any problem with that LTA page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:10, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm getting in late here, but I agree with Kim's removal of these details. Aside from the obvious 'outing' and harassment-type issues, we have no way of knowing whether this editor actually worked for that politician (I presume), and prominently linking the politician to this copyright violator was potentially defamatory. Nick-D (talk) 23:37, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I won't pretend to understand much of what's above here. There seem to be some very shrill and shorthand arguments, few of which make a full and coherent case that I can follow. However I don't myself see that this edit is necessarily what's claimed. It comes from an editor who asserts that he has a particular real-life identity but I see no reason to take this at face value. We don't allow subjects of BLP articles to complain about their own treatment without OTRS confirmation of their identity. It seems to me that we cannot be absolutely certain that this person is responsible for the edits. What if it's a political opponent trying to get them to look bad? Nyttend has reverted my removal of personal information but I don't think this discussion has run its course. Nyttend may be right in restoring the material but there would have been no harm in letting this discussion run to a consensus before doing so. I'll ask Nyttend to self-revert (I'm not going to edit war over this.) Kim Dent-Brown 09:58, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I have reworded it, leaving the info about the self-disclosed name and the matching earlier sock account in, but hedging it to make it clear we cannot vouch for the correctness of the self-identification. I have also removed the employer address. I see no ethical problem with actually doing what was suggested there and contacting that office, in this particular case – given the fact it's such a high-profile public institution, the abuser's edits are clearly directed at our coverage of that institution, and he has repeatedly claimed to be working on its behalf, this matter is different from simply "contacting somebody's employer" to get them in trouble. Have people actually done this and has there been any response from official Senate addresses? In any case, if somebody still wishes to do this, they know where to find the address. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:42, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree we should make clear we have no way of knowing if the disclosed information is accurate, the risk of an opponent or someone else falsely claiming to be a person is something (I think) I've noted before. So the rewording is ideal.

However I don't know if your claims of BLP are accurate. Unless things have massively changed since I became less active in the area and quick check of the noticeboard suggests they haven't, we normally just accepted self identification as the subject at face value unless it actually matters we are certain the person is who they say they are. A lot of the time it doesn't and shouldn't matter who is complaining, at most it may give people an added impetus to take things seriously and fix issues quickly so it isn't a big deal if we are incorrect. Sometimes it may be suggested the person go thru OTRS confirmation, but if they don't bother it doesn't mean we just ignore their complaint, we don't want to make things too hard for those with legitimate complaints. If there is a complaint about the accuracy of sourced information, for better or worse there's often little we can do without WP:RS even if the person's identity is confirmed (how to handle such cases is something we still IMO don't really have a good way to deal with), so the first request would often be for RS. (Times when we may require definite identification may be when a person of limited notability is asking for the removal of sourced information for privacy reasons or when the person uses a username which identifies them as a well known subject.) I would note even in times when perhaps we shouldn't accept the claims at face value, people often sort of do, e.g. people will say someone created an article on themselves rather then saying someone claiming to be the subject created an article on themselves. Or someone has been removing well sourced criticial information rather etc.

Nil Einne (talk) 17:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Hide this version

Could someone please hide this version? Contains a phonenumber. Evalowyn (talk) 12:13, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done and emailed it to oversight for them to further handle. In future please contact oversight directly instead of posting it on a board where hundreds more people will see it--Jac16888 12:29, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

And now oversighted, though I can't stress enough how important it is not to post this stuff in public. Courcelles 19:05, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Please provide me a copy of a (non-notable) deleted article

Hello. Please provide me a copy (for example create it under my userpage) of Warpigs (band) which was deleted as non-notable. Apart from my disagreement (it's quite notable in Hungary, but that's not up to me to decide anymore) the author put definite amount of work in it and would like to post it somewhere else. Would be even better to undelete and move it under my userpage, so I'll have its history. Thanks in advance. --grin ✎ 08:07, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Normally one requests that at WP:REFUND. The question of course becomes "where else would you post it?" ... I don't think Misplaced Pages (or the contributors) have approved you taking it somewhere else (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:17, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Why wouldn't it be reusable under the same terms as any other material from Misplaced Pages?—Kww(talk) 11:01, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

There's no need to get approval to post stuff from Misplaced Pages elsewhere. That's kind of the point. :) --Conti|✉ 11:13, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

No, but if we provide a copy of the article to someone then we're also obliged to provide a list of the article's authors. That happens automatically if a page is undeleted and moved with its full history, but would be lost if an admin were to just copy and paste the text of the deleted article into an email. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:47, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done It's now here for now (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:25, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

ANI topic ban closure

Could someone uninvolved please make a nice easy close at Misplaced Pages:ANI#Proposed_restrictions_for_User:Crzyclarks, since consensus is clear (even the subject of the ban appears to accept it's appropriate) and the conversation is beginning to descend into bickering. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 14:01, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

• Seriously - could someone sort this out? The editor is now being disruptive on the articles they're about to be banned from. Black Kite (talk) 17:12, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

FFS... I have indeffed him. To go from mere 1RR and a topic ban to indef. Utter and shameful cluelessless ✉→ BWilkins ←✎ 18:01, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, but an uninvolved admin still needs to make a decision ASAP, just now with a wider/longer scope :-) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:25, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

WT:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2012#The next closers

With four short months allotted before we have to close whatever community discussion happens, we can't afford a month to choose closers. So far, The Blade and I have stepped up. Beginning a week after the announcement here at WP:AN (so, 03:16 UTC June 30), if there are no objections here or on the linked page, I'm going to proceed with soliciting discussion. - Dank (push to talk) 14:58, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Kent W. Colton

I am attempting to create a page titled "Kent W. Colton" and have been advised that it is okay to create the page, however, it is on the local or global blacklist and has been restricted to administrators. Can an administrator create this page? I have the content formatted and ready to post if it necessary for me to send it to you for review.Dinman01 (talk) 15:19, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done (Kent W. Colton). Remove the template I placed on the article when it has some content. Hut 8.5 15:26, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

FIFA Soccer 13

Hello. Please delete FIFA 13 for move FIFA Soccer 13 to this name. Thanks-- Alireza 16:38, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Please use WP:RM on the article talk page to establish community consensus on the correct name. GiantSnowman 16:39, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

1RR at Shooting of Trayvon Martin

Shooting of Trayvon Martin was under 1RR first to resolve a wheel war and then to resolve edit waring from March 27 to June 15. After it expired, there has been a moderate amount of edit warring, see . I think reinstating 1RR might encourage greater discussion, but before reinstating it, I wanted to get consensus here. MBisanz 23:14, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I believe MBisanz is overstating any problems. Our general policy is 3RR and unless specific issues can be brought along with the request here (not vague generalizations), it seems reasonable that the 3RR policy, should be the standing policy on this article, like the rest of Misplaced Pages. -- Avanu (talk) 23:34, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, it was suffering major problems not that long ago. I'd be willing to let it slip back to normal, unless/until the problems recur. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:53, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if I need to notify any editors about my posting here, but a problem on the page IMO is that removing things that have been there awhile is in a way like reverting, and to take something out that's been in there awhile because it doesn't seem important is a very low bar versus the high bars to add something. It's also quite subjective when it's removing things that are properly sourced, relevant, etc. I really haven't seen any guidelines or rules about it, but removing things for the reason that they seem unimportant maybe should be subject to a rule like 1RR or 3RR, as if they are reverts, not just straightforward edits. Removing 5 things in a day really isn't the same thing as adding 5 things in a day even though both are edits. Removing things became an issue on this page after an editor who hadn't been working on it checked the length and said it was too long. That editor hasn't been back to the page, so isn't involved in this matter, but since then there's been a push to reduce things, but I've been suggesting discussing whether splitting it at least once or reducing it would be the better option. But taking things out that were acceptable can cause at least as many controversies as putting things in, especially when it isn't about relevance, sourcing, etc., but more like opinion about what seems important to different people. Psalm84 (talk) 01:59, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I also want to add that I did notify another editor, Minor, who has been involved in this matter. Psalm84 (talk) 02:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• support reinstating 1RR if current editing behavior continues. There have been constant reverts since 1RR expired. There are a couple of editors who are extremely protective of the article. I'm ok with giving it a bit of time to see if things don't improve, but if it doesn't then I think 1RR should be reinstated. Minor4th 02:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I think both Minor4th and Psalm84 have been very collegial and positive editors with regard to the article. I simply don't think special cases need to exist for articles unless a particular need has been clearly identified. People are not discouraged from making reverts, its simply a part of editing. The problem is only when they begin to 'edit war' and for Misplaced Pages's purposes, this is usually (but not always) defined as when it hits 3 reverts (could be fewer). But honest mistakes and honest improvements get reverted all the time, and I would say unless there are editors who are simply intransigent (those people can get a trout), then we're doing fine on that article. -- Avanu (talk) 03:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• 3RR is the general guideline and should be applied to this article as well. The example given above by MBisanz is just a small slice and not representative of the overall editing behavior of this article. The above example was resolved through discussion and we will continue to work towards improving this article through discussion and consensus.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 03:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
• 3RR should be fine. Yes I've seen a few edit wars, but in the end it's been worked out. I belive the editors of this article can work together without administrator intervention. Richard-of-Earth (talk)

Possible spammer?

Wandie benson (talk · contribs) has been creating promotional articles repeatedly with no references. There are several CSD warnings on his talk page. --Eastlaw  ⁄ _contribs 06:43, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Given the fact that the user created numerous articles pertaining to the same or related topics (going so far as to reverse his first and last names in titling articles when his initial article was deleted), the account has been blocked for spamming. Michael (talk) 08:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Block review: Sceptre and AndyTheGrump

Background

• Will (2012-05-05). "On Misplaced Pages and Breanna Manning". Liberal Will. {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)
  • 2012-06-18: "As the writer of that blog post and someone who would rather refer to Manning as 'she', " — Sceptre
• 2012-05-05: Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 40#Breanna Manning
• 2012-05-05: Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive151#Breanna Manning
• 2012-05-05: User talk:Sceptre#Manning
• 2012-05-05: "If you're trying to suggest he's male, despite all that, then you're either dense or bigoted." — Sceptre
• 2012-05-06: Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)/Archive 95#Fundamental problems with MOS:IDENTITY
• 2012-05-07: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive751#AndyTheGrump
• 2012-06-21: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#AndyTheGrump
• 2012-06-21: "This topic is closed. I will not allow Sceptre to violate Wikipedoa WP:BLP policy on my talk page in pursuit of his deranged and obnoxious campaign to 're-gender' Bradley Manning against his own express wishes. Sceptre, fuck of and troll elsewhere, you repulsive little lying bigot." — AndyTheGrump
• 2012-06-21: "allow me to apologise for any indirectness there Sceptre, allow me to say, from me to you, fuck off and troll elsewhere. Am I being clear and direct ?" — Penyulap
• 2012-06-25: Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Special enforcement log#Current sanctions
• 2012-06-25: User talk:Sceptre#BLP Ban imposed
• 2012-06-27: User talk:Sceptre#June 2012

The links above were added by someone else. Arcandam (talk) 15:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Request

Please unblock users Sceptre and AndyTheGrump. Unblocking both is the fairest (least unfair) solution at this moment in space and time. Arcandam (talk) 04:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Unblock requests are to be made by the editor, not by proxy. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:06, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Why? Do you have a link? Arcandam (talk) 05:07, 27 June 2012 (UTC) p.s. Sceptre's unblock must go via the ban appeals subcommittee BTW.

Block reviews can be requested by any user, not just the one who was blocked. See this subsection of the blocking policy page. That said, it also says that appeals typically should be made at AN, not AN/I. Might I suggest moving the thread? elektrikSHOOS (talk) 05:13, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I stand corrected! Thanks for pointing that out. :) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe Sceptre is blocked, just banned. And I think a topic probation, as suggested in the discussion, would have been a more fair 'punishment' than the ban that was enacted. -- Avanu (talk) 05:13, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

You may want to double-check that. He is both blocked and banned. Arcandam (talk) 05:16, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Wow.... just unbelievably shitty of SarekofVulcan to do that. Seriously, that kind of cocky ass-hat stuff is why he has no business being an admin. He simply amps up the conflict instead of working to resolve problems. Sceptre didn't need to be kicked while down. I didn't agree with Sceptre's previous conduct, but really, this is just BS. -- Avanu (talk) 05:24, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Again, Avanu -- start the recall, or STOP the personal attacks. Thanks.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:16, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Sarek, my language above was strong, but hardly comparable I think to blocking a guy in the manner you just had. You've had numerous run-ins with people over the years and a large contingent of people who dislike your tactics. I suggest that you simply resign or, even better, just avoid using the tools for a while; the process you refer to on your page seems overly convoluted. My personal feeling is that you lack self-control when your emotions are running high, and you make snap decisions that even you would question later. If you were forced to act like a normal user for a while, even by your own choice, I think you might realize that for most of us, the only option is patience. I'll reduce the level of derision in my comments, for your sake, but if I see your actions stepping over the line, I will let you know in plain and unambiguous language. Fair enough? -- Avanu (talk) 14:27, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

No, you'll "reduce the level of derision" BECAUSE THAT IS WIKIPEDIA POLICY. If you don't like working the same way everyone else does, try Citizendium. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:32, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, and as for the other 99% of my comment....? I was actually trying to communicate why I am unhappy with your actions. (And please don't lecture me about WP:Civility, Mr. Pot. Thanks, Mr. Kettle.) -- Avanu (talk) 14:47, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Sceptre's previous conduct was troutworthy (and in my opinion also worthy of a topic ban), but we were having a productive conversation on his talkpage. He was not refusing to get the point and there were no IDHT problems. The goal of the topic ban was not to prevent us from having a productive conversation on Sceptre's talkpage. Arcandam (talk) 05:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support unblock of Sceptre. While the reference to the issue on his talkpage was technically a violation of the ban, it was a first such violation; failing to realize that the ban applies to one's own talkpage too is a frequent mistake and one easy to make, and we should also take into account that it was during a discussion that was explicitly brought to Scepter's talkpage by an editor from the opposite side of the debate. In these circumstances, a simple reminder would have been far more appropriate than an immediate block, especially a block of this length and without warning. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:51, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• Nota bene: In our discussion on Sceptre's talkpage none of the problems that caused the topicban (IDHT, refusal to get the point) occured. We were having a productive discussion, if we are unable or not allowed to do that then it is impossible to improve this encyclopedia. I voted for a topic ban on articles related to Manning, this is not an article. I won't hesitate to request a block if Sceptre deserves it, I am not a Sceptre fanboy and I disagree with Sceptre about a couple of things, but for now the most reasonable solution is to unblock Sceptre so we can continue the conversation on Sceptre's talkpage. Arcandam (talk) 06:02, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment – How the Bradley Manning article got to GA status, despite that it woefully fails criterion #5 of Misplaced Pages:Good article criteria, is beyond me. It should be delisted. --MuZemike 05:56, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• Good point, I agree. Arcandam (talk) 06:02, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• (ec)Support unblock of Sceptre per Fut.Perf., although I didn't realize that a topic ban of this sort was applicable to one's own talkpage. - Jorgath (talk) 06:04, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
• Comment I didn't know this either. I have notified Sarek about this thread. -- Dianna (talk) 06:06, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - When Sarek does address this, I believe he needs to agree to fully explain the BLPBAN in plain and clear language, and be willing to warn and explain when necessary if Sceptre happens to step close to the line again, alternately, Sarek could simply explain his ban fully, plainly, and clearly, and allow other administrators to do the actual enforcement, rather than biting someone who I believe actually wants to follow the community consensus. -- Avanu (talk) 06:14, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
• Comment It seems to me that the biggest issue was that a number of people in the community thought the topic ban we were establishing meant editing BLP articles and their talk pages, especially Manning, not mentioning any of those on Sceptre's own talk page. We may need to clarify that ban as a community. - Jorgath (talk) 06:34, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
• Unblock Sceptre and trout all responsible for this ridiculous farce. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:51, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support unblock of Sceptre; it's likely he didn't fully understand the ban. Cardamon (talk) 08:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
• Question: I'm not sure I follow the logic of the original ban closing, and don't really know the process. Are blocks/bans typically implemented by a vote, or only for sensitive areas? Does the "weight of the arguments" system used on other parts of the wiki not apply, and how are sensitive areas defined? Thanks, Sazea (talk) 08:47, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support unblock, 100%. I didn't know that the topic ban stretched as far as a civil conversation on Sceptre's own talk page, and many above me also didn't know that, so no doubt Sceptre was also unaware. A warning would've been a much better way to handle this. Far, far too trigger-happy. Bunnies! Leave a message 10:06, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - FYI, I was going to make this unblock, but it appears Sceptre has not yet recognized that he is prohibited from making such speech even on his talk page. This worries me: I don't want to see some of the IDHT behavior extended here, and then have this issue come up again in a month or so, which I think it might. Magog the Ogre (talk) 10:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, this attempt to involuntarily 'request an unblock on my behalf'. I have not requested an unblock, have accepted that my behaviour merited a block, and intended to accept the block without appeal. To use an involuntary unblock as 'fairness' to justify unblocking someone else seems to me to be highly questionable - and more so when the block has little time left to run, and this is supposed to 'balance' an unblock for a continuing refusal on Sceptre's part to conform to WP:BLP policy, and to cease using Misplaced Pages as a platform for a campaign to 'regender' Bradley Manning against Manning's own express wishes. Sceptre's continuing IDHT behaviour should be looked at on its own merits. copied by request AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:36, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose both The blocks were subject to significant discussion at ANI. Andy opposes the request, and Sceptre's CANNOT be unblocked here. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:46, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Uhm, where was Sceptre's block discussed previously? Also, I disagree a valid unblock consensus cannot be reached here. AN has always been a valid forum for that sort of thing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:05, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
• Comment In this diff and this one, I made it clear to Spectre that the topic ban included discussion of Manning's gender identity, not just article edits.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:13, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I disagree that those diffs make anything clear at all. They make clear that AN/I, and presumably the rest of WP space, is also in the topic ban. They do not make clear that Sceptre's own talk page is in the topic ban. I think this is actually the nexus of the problem - you think you've explained something succinctly and clearly, but to Sceptre and a number of others, it was as clear as mud. - Jorgath (talk) 12:36, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• The question of whether Arcandam could make this request at all has come up, as the policy document no longer states that a third party request may be made at this noticeboard. So, the request is inappropriate.
• Discussion of a clarification to the policy page is here. on the policy talkpage. Penyulap ☏ 14:09, 27 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Given the amount of support (akin to 'seconds' in parliamentary procedure), I think it can be safely assumed that this request is something the community supports discussion on. Additionally, given the fact that "Any user may request a block", it seems reasonable that the converse is reasonable as well, i.e. 'Any user may request a unblock'. -- Avanu (talk) 14:34, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

As I have written on the talkpage of the policy page, 14 minutes before you used the word 'assumed', "I think it warrants a mention as there are differing assumptions on the matter." per it's removal from the page, indicating that you are mistaken. Penyulap ☏ 14:40, 27 Jun 2012 (UTC)

That's a moot point. Sceptre obviusly did make an unblock request himself. Given that fact, it doesn't matter who brought it here and in what form. Let's keep irrelevant process bureaucracy out of this thread here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:47, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

So you're assuming it's fine, Andy is suggesting it's not, on the policy page it's not, so how does this not support the question of clarifying the issue ? Penyulap ☏ 14:54, 27 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY, this should go forward anyway, and WP:IAR that policy because it doesn't make sense. - Jorgath (talk) 15:03, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

with the division of editors on either side, it seems common-sense to fix the darn policy. Penyulap ☏ 15:28, 27 Jun 2012 (UTC)

I agree that this is discussion-worthy -- while the topic ban was clearly validly imposed in my view, I acknowledge that this enforcement action wasn't as clearly supportable. Otoh, I haven't seen anything that's made me change my mind yet. "banned from edits relating to Manning" is about as clear as you get -- I'm quite confused by the editors above claiming it isn't.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Here's the problem, Sarek. People in the discussion were !voting, but you had TWO concurrent discussions and people weighing in at different levels. For example, the two editors who led a call for bans said:

Anyone willing to brandish WP:BLPBAN and topic ban Sceptre from making edits relating to Manning? Salvio Let's talk about it! 23:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

How do people feel about a topic ban for Sceptre from articles related to Bradley Manning, broadly construed? I'd support such a ban. – NULL ‹talk›‹edits› 23:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Notice in the original post, the differing levels of each post... the latter one isn't indented, and Nobody Ent claims to be refactoring the two requests under one section. In addition, the various comments of people later show that they weren't (for most of them) specifically picking one or the other, just saying "Support" or "Support topic ban". Finally, when you closed it at AN/I, you simply said "BLPBAN imposed", but didn't make a summation of exactly what the ban was going to be or how it was to be enforced (even the WP:BLPBAN page says "articles", it doesn't say everything). Even the template on Sceptre's page that said "topic-banned from edits relating to Bradley Manning, broadly construed", since that contains a link to an article, it can easily be seen to be meant to apply to the linked article only. In short, it is about communication first and clear *and* helpful warnings later. -- Avanu (talk) 17:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, the notification template informing Sceptre of his ban (placed by Sarek) says "Further violations of the BLP policy will result in you being banned from editing" (notice it does not say 'Blocked'). Another good cause to warn first, before acting with tools. -- Avanu (talk) 17:29, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Avanu beat me to it, but that was what I was going to say, more or less. Especially the part about the link to the Bradley Manning article. - Jorgath (talk) 17:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support unblock because I don't see evidence that Sceptre was willing to violate his topic ban and, as such, I believe he should just have been issued a warning. As a side note, to avoid these problems, when I impose a topic ban, I always point out that the editor in question is prohibited from making any edits relating to X across all namespaces (i.e. everywhere on Misplaced Pages). It helps to avoid confusion, in my opinion. Salvio 17:50, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support unblock - largely per Salvio above. Sceptre overstepped his topic ban by posting to his talk page and he may not have been aware that it also came under the topic ban. Having said that, he seriously needs to back away from the Manning article and its related articles, and just move onto something else - Alison 17:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support unblock on account of some confusion about scope and assuming good faith, with the understanding that, going forward, the topic ban includes all namespaces, and further violations will result in extended blocks. —Torchiest _edits 17:59, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Procedural discussion

as it is not related to any editor, I figure I can ask the question, should block review requests be combined, or considered separately Penyulap ☏ 12:58, 27 Jun 2012 (UTC)

which means the question doesn't belong here, except where it relates to these two editors, oops ! Penyulap ☏ 13:00, 27 Jun 2012 (UTC)

I'll have no part or opinion on either matter as I am involved clearly on one side, also, as a disclaimer, I edited (created) the policy section that has been linked to. I simply wish for everyone else to have their say here with as little confusion as possible, so I have separated the issues. all of which can sill be discussed, but with more clarity. Penyulap ☏ 12:49, 27 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Naturally, anyone is free to revert if they feel up to the challenge of tallying both sides, counting single 'oppose' or 'support' with 'both' !votes and so on, good luck guys and girls ! Penyulap ☏ 12:54, 27 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, no offense, but I've collapsed them again. I find it far more confusing to have a new section started in the middle of an ongoing discussion. Also, the part about AndyTheGrump was obviously a non-starter anyway, given his own statement, so I believe it will neither make for much confusion in the original format, nor would an extra section about him be useful at this stage. I'm also not fond of having the sections subdivided into "support" and "oppose" vote sections. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:14, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

No offence taken, I'll just suggest that combining an unblock request for the two editors will be every bit as satisfying to the community, and editors involved, as the combined discussion of their original block. Penyulap ☏ 14:44, 27 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Unblock

I've unblocked Sceptre as there seems to be a consensus that Sarek overstepped and Sceptre should be unblocked. I don't see much discussion related to Andy's block, so I've left that in place for the time being. I hope this helps to resolve things, but if it doesn't, another admin can of course revert me. I'm not perfect. Keilana| 18:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Request to create new page for "Santhakumar(Director"

Hi All,

Need help to create new page for "Santhakumar(Director".

He is Indian Film director and directed Tamil language movie Mouna Guru

Below are the few reference for "Santhakumar"

1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXRb2VbUeHw
2. http://www.pixmonk.com/2011/12/25/silent-monk/
3. http://www.thehindu.com/life-and-style/nxg/article2735004.ece
4. http://www.moviecrow.com/movie/546/mounaguru-tamil-movie-review — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kvijilio (talk • contribs) 11:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• Please see articles for creation. Ensure that notability is met (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:47, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Unvanishing ScienceApologist

Arbcom case: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist#ScienceApologist, which shows the first instance (that we know of) of sockpuppetry on 10 December 2011, EdJohnston logged it as 128.59.171.194 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Since then, numerous SPI cases have come up, including an active one now at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/ScienceApologist.

User:ScienceApologist (aka: User:VanishedUser314159) seems to have been granted a right to vanish around 2008, then it was taken away two days later, then there was a lot of redactions and gnashing of teeth, with a final WP:RTV granted around March 2011. Jpgordon indef blocked the vanished user on 4 March 2011.

It is clear that this user is not going to vanish. This means that all their past SPI cases and other edits are under a Vanisheduser name, courtesy blanked, which is inconvenient, at the very least. At this stage, after so many socks and opportunities, it appears that the courtesy vanishing should be taken back, and the full account restored, as the editor is clearly not acting in good faith and is continuing to be a disruption.

As a courtesy, I will be notifing those who may have been involved at an administrative level previously, including User:John Vandenberg, User:Steve Smith, User:EdJohnston and User:Nihonjoe. Feel free to notify anyone else that may have been involved previously.

Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:30, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposal that ScienceApologist be unvanished and the account be fully restored

• Support as proposer. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:30, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support - SA still has the option of requesting unblock if he wants to return to normal editing. Apparenly he declines to do so. He should know that he can *either* edit or stay vanished but not both. More background on the recent socking can be found in Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/ScienceApologist/Archive. At present he uses a series of IPs (and probably one registered account, Hudn12 (talk · contribs)) to putter around with WP:FRINGE topics. His activity includes some edit warring on articles; he charges other people with socking, with apparently no sense of irony. EdJohnston (talk) 17:42, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support - and also for any other users with similar failed vanishing issues - like User:ChrisO . Good to see user User:Rlevse has done the correct thing - respect for that. Youreallycan 17:47, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support. The last time I had to look into this never-ending story I got RSI from all the clicking around. Ed, I don't think Joshua understand irony; all the socking and the attendant split personality disorders take that out of a person. Drmies (talk) 17:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Administrative backlog