Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:55, 5 August 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

User:Hopiakuta

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

Hopiakuta (talk · contribs)

Can someone tell me what exactly is this user doing? I've been looking over his history and he's taking a lot of non-existent pages and making them into redirects. Especially his edit summary is impossible to decipher. All I guess by this is that he's doing some sort of google bomb in association with these terms and his edits goes back years. Judging by his talk history, there hasn't been much notice at all about this habit. ViriiK (talk) 10:18, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

• What is it you want an admin to do here exactly? You don't appear to have tried simply asking them. Beeblebrox (talk) 10:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Look at his edit history. I'm guessing he's manipulating wikipedia to his advantage to implement some sort of Google bomb or something similar. ViriiK (talk) 10:34, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

While his edit summaries are incomprehensible, the redirects themselves look good to me. Have you tried contacting the editor? I've notified him of this discussion. Huon (talk) 10:50, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Is this something like the Sven70 situation? It looks that way, except there was no problem with Sven's articlespace edits, while these ones are indistinguishable from SEO spam to me. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:13, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Treat me like I'm dumb. I've been contributing to Misplaced Pages for years and I've read people's edit history which this was just the first time I've seen this long list of incomprehensible changes in the edit reasons. I felt like there was some motive behind it like a google bomb or some form of SEO manipulation since the edit reasons do have links to the articles or redirects. ViriiK (talk) 11:21, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Requesting some time, leaving a note with Xeno, who at one point was mentoring said user and might be able to shed light on this. - Penwhale | 11:30, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

You make up fantasy crimes that are not supported by evidence, then delete honest questions.

You have even made Uunartoq_Qeqertaq inhabited, which is absolute nonsense.

hopiakuta Please do sign your communiqué .~~Thank You, DonFphrnqTaub Persina. 11:40, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I never made up any "fantasy crimes". I simply said that your edit history is incomprehensible and it warranted my suspicion that there was some motive behind your edit reasons. As for "Uunartoq Qeqertaq" where did I do that? It never was inhabited in its entire history so it never was deserted in the first place. How can you desert something if no one has lived there permanently? ViriiK (talk) 11:44, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

(ec, responding to Penwhale:) Xeno seems to be inactive; I asked them about this some time ago (User talk:Xeno/Archive 29#Confusing edits by Hopiakuta) and received no response. In view of talk page contributions that are ... inscrutable ... at best, maybe a preventative block is appropriate? If only because Hopiakuta appears unable to meaningfully communicate with others, which isn't good for a collaborative project like ours.  Sandstein  11:46, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The only reason how I came across you was because of http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Stericycle&action=history where you made these modifications http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Stericycle&diff=502742089&oldid=502714710 that made no sense whatsoever. The company, Stericycle, has nothing to do with any of these categories. Can you explain how you come to these conclusions? ViriiK (talk) 11:47, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

A desert island is uninhabited island is an island that had yet to be (or is not currently) populated by humans. Uninhabited islands are often used in movies or stories about shipwrecked people, and are also used as stereotypes for the idea of "paradise". Some uninhabited islands are protected as nature reserves and some are privately owned. Devon Island in Canada is claimed to be the largest uninhabited island in the world.

Small coral atolls or islands usually have no source of fresh water, but at times a fresh water lens (Ghyben-Herzberg lens) can be reached with a well.

Collaborative fraud.

I do not need to copy them all; this is from google:

Report: Romney made millions from investing in abortion related firm

article.wn.com/.../Report_Romney_made_millions_from_investing_i...

Jul 3, 2012 – Romney Invested In Abortion Cleanup Company Stericycle ..... $100000 and $250000 in the Bain Capital Asia fund that purchased Uniview.

hopiakuta Please do sign your communiqué .~~Thank You, DonFphrnqTaub Persina. 11:55, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Didn't answer my question on the Stericycle changes. The modifications you made to Stericycle specifically with those categories did not belong there nor was there a valid reason to do so. Also I reverted the changes from that IP address regarding Stericycle because Misplaced Pages is not a newspaper. WP:NOT#NEWS As for "Desert Island", I'm talking about this change I made specifically because you made this change http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Desert_island&diff=502406239&oldid=492458336 which you happened to include some non-related article's discussion on an already deleted article. I don't care about the whole "desert island" (although you just answered your own question but I can say that this is a case of WP:COMPETENCE). I'm calling into question how do you come to bring unrelated stuff into the talk pages or any article anywhere on wikipedia? Doing investigation of my own, I assume you own a site called altacalifernia.com and altacaliferne.com which thankfully is broken although your name is implicated in the broken links. Chrome actually prevents me from going via to the redirect site but in the link it says var/chroot/home/content/h/o/p/hopiaku/html/htttp://reltime2012.ru/frunleh?9 However had it properly worked Chrome actually let me visited the site, it redirects I would have been sent to a malware website. I'm suspecting that you are doing SEO manipulation on google or some other website to redirect users to malware websites. ViriiK (talk) 12:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Your argument is too convoluted & I have not the slightest knowledge how to do most of what you have described, let alone the intent.

that had yet to be (or is not currently) populated by humans.

hopiakuta Please do sign your communiqué .~~Thank You, DonFphrnqTaub Persina. 13:00, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

So you're saying that you don't own these websites despite the fact you linked them in your talk pages (which I've removed) but are now malware redirects? ViriiK (talk) 13:09, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, a few minutes looking at this user's 'contributions' reveals that regardless of the motivation for making them, they are gibberish. On that basis, a permanent block per WP:COMPETENCE looks a foregone conclusion. Trying to figure out what is behind this is an irrelevance. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Egads. Block this nonsensical user now so that the cleanup can begin, i.e. "Condo Rice" redirects to Condoleeza Rice, "Mars Won" to Mars One, etc... Tarc (talk) 13:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

He also has the following sockpuppet accounts which are: User:persina & User:Kutahopia ViriiK (talk) 13:33, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Neither account seems to have been used since 2007. I suspect they were never intended for socking - they should likewise be blocked, per WP:COMPETENCE, which is the only relevant issue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:38, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I understand that. I would also cite the case of WP:ELNO because his sites which he's linked (all of which I have removed) were redirects to malware websites. He can't simply claim that he doesn't own them since the registration is still intact and not going to expire until 2013. The links were inserted in his sockpuppet account & his own account including external wikipedia sites. See: , , , ViriiK (talk) 13:50, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I have blocked Hopiakuta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and his alternate accounts indefinitely because the above contributions show that they lack the ability to communicate (and, at least to an extent, edit) meaningfully.  Sandstein  13:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

If I may comment in place of Xeno, as I followed some of the mentoring he has done with Hopiakuta at the time. Hopiakuta is a user with good faith, who is suffering form some kind of disability. If I remember correctly, Myofascial pain syndrome, probably blindness - and maybe more. He seems to be using outdated assistive technologies. It's very difficult for him to participate, but he seems to be attached to it very much.

I understand your choice to ban this user, as collaboration with him is difficult. But I fear it might be a harsh decision for him. The least thing to do would be to treat him as a person with good faith, and not a vandal. Cheers, Dodoïste (talk) 14:41, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I fully endorse this block. I attempted to communicate with this user in the past and they not only ignored me, but removed their talk page history by moving their talk page to this ridiculous title. This suggests unwillingness to edit helpfully (or at least incompetence), but the links to malware suggest malice. How exactly do you accidentally link to malware sites? Even if somehow this is all an innocent misunderstanding due to their disability, Misplaced Pages is not therapy, and their disruptive editing should not be allowed to continue.-RunningOnBrains 16:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't recall any links to malware in previous AN/I threads or in my previous "interactions" with him. Perhaps his computer is infected. Otherwise, I believe the situation is unchanged from that point, in which (IIRC) close monitoring and mentoring was recommended, essentially per WP:COMPETENCE. If mentoring isn't working I see no other choice. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:27, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I also don't see any other solution than to block him at the moment. The mentoring seemed to work as long as Xeno was around. If I was near from Hopiakuta in real life I would do the mentoring, or do something to help, as I have experience in the field. But from a distance, and through the obscure Misplaced Pages discussion system, it seems hardly feasible to me. I feel sad for him, but can't do much. Dodoïste (talk) 16:42, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Not to open a can of worms, and it is quite possible (likely even) that these are two different people, but the behavior of creating meaningless redirects is exactly what Bowei Huang (and all of his incarnations) eventually got indeffed/banned for. I think his most recent account was User:Bowei Huang 2, which clearly shows the redirect creation situation. Now, something in the patterns of speech doesn't match exactly for me, so I'm not convinced of the connection, but given the similar MOs here, I thought it worthwhile to bring up. Any thoughts or ideas? --Jayron32 02:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure; it could be, but I'm getting the same sense that the communication styles aren't quite a fit. The other banned user I can think of is Shakinglord, as I remember at least one of his socks going around creating redirects like Bling Crosby, but that doesn't quite seem like a match either. In short, you might be onto something, but I have the same pangs of doubt as you. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The problem for me isn't really the redirects: it's the addition of nonsensical "similar" words to see also sections, the way that all edit summaries consist exclusively of these chains of mechanically similar words, and that nearly all other edits (stretching back for years with seemingly no break) are completely incomprehensible garbage. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Though I haven't currently got the time to go back through the AN/AN/I archives to link to diffs, I've got to say I am struck by the decrease in compassion, empathy, and AGF displayed in this forum. In earlier discussions, while editors and admins were equally conflicted about what the best course of action might be, at least they showed some desire to help this user work within WP policies. Earlier discussions took into account not only Hopiakuta's unknown disabilities, but also the ancient technologies he's forced to use; editors actually tried to conceive of workarounds and assists for him, all with the goal of making it possible for him to continue editing. Now, even though he hasn't been brought up here for a while, he's immediately accused of being a bad-faith user, a vandal, a sock, or some sort of evil entity. His contributions, rather than being viewed through the lens of his own experiences and abilities, are immediately disparaged as "garbage" and "gibberish". Even if these contributions are NOT up to article standards, the fact remains that they are good-faith contributions from a good-faith user; even if we can't keep them, they represent effort on his part (probably more effort than we can even know) and shouldn't be mocked or insulted. I'm not saying Hopiakuta is likely to become a model editor; sadly, I'll even concede that his combined challenges may make it impossible for him to continue editing at all. But there's no reason at all to make hostile assumptions about his intent, nor to disparage or dismiss his efforts at contributing. I believe there's a very strong connection between the kind of baseline hostility level shown here and the slow hemmorhage of established contributors; fortunately for all concerned, I haven't got time to go on about THAT, either. But show some compassion, people. (And Dodoiste, thank you.) GJC 17:57, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not therapy and Competence is required. Helping out fellow users is laudable, and something I do whenever possible, but we're not here to hold hands or enable the disadvantaged, we're here to build an encyclopedia. If smart people proceeding from a stance of assuming good faith cannot make heads or tails of what an editor is saying, then the editor shouldn't be contributing here, because the net result is indistinguishable from vandalism or trolling. I'm sorry if that's rude or appears to be lacking in compassion, but that's just the way it must be. Our energy needs to go into writing and improving an encyclopedia, not into providing social services to the disabled. If the latter is what one is interested in, there are any number of worthy projects and organizations one can work with. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:32, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

If you'll re-read what I posted, you'll find that I did not suggest that anyone "hold hands", "provide social services", or anything else along those lines, nor did I contradict either Misplaced Pages is not therapy or Competence is required.

What I DID suggest was that we stop implying bad faith, sockpuppetry, vandalism, trollery, malice, Googlebombing, SEO manipulation, and complicity in the downfall of Western civilization; and instead see this for what it is: a good-faith user who, for a combination of reasons, seems unable to make encyclopedic contributions to Misplaced Pages. I am not saying that we must accept contributions that the majority of readers would find difficult to comprehend; I am not saying that this user should be coddled, babied, or condescended to (in fact, if I recall correctly, that's like a brief catalog of ways to piss this user off.) What I -AM- saying is, just because you don't understand someone, that doesn't mean that person is malicious; it's always better to assume good intentions even if the result falls short of your standards; don't accuse people til you have SOLID evidence; and if you have to "fire" an editor, there's no need to parade along behind him as he leaves, telling him his contributions were "garbage". In other words: be kind. I'm not sure why that's such a difficult thing to do. GJC 07:33, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Please unblock this user. They have been editing in good faith since 2006. Every year or so, a user like ViriiK comes around and starts wondering what is going on without knowing the backstory and tries to get Hopiakuta blocked because the only way users like ViriiK know how to deal with something strange or different is to eliminate it. That's very sad, but typical of human nature. Hopiakuta's contribution history shows that the user has made constructive edits for six years now. The "let's block first and then find out what's going on" reaction is really not appropriate. Please do the due diligence. Viriditas (talk) 01:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Wiki-gnoming for half a decade doesn't outweigh... what ever this sort of thing is, sorry. There's a fundamental lack of an capability to communicate here, and it is ridiculous to demand that an entire project bend backwards to cater to one person in this manner. Life sucks. Tarc (talk) 01:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I do not see that a person who makes easily identifiable & correctable mistakes seriously harms the encyclopedia. I think we are right in trying to be just a little more charitable than the world in general when we can act collectively. It might compensate for the unfortunate tendency of all too many individual Wikipedians to be less friendly than the expectations of that world. DGG ( talk ) 03:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

First off, saying "the only way users like ViriiK know how to deal with something strange or different is to eliminate it" is uncalled for. Second, you've made a contradiction: somehow, ViriiK doesn't know the backstory, yet he does this "every year or so?"

If you can explain the situation, I'm all for it, but this isn't exactly helping things. — The Hand That Feeds You: 22:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

You're having reading comprehension problems. I said "every year or so, a user like ViriiKnot" does this, not the user does this. Huge difference. This evidence is fully supported by the AN and AN/I reports and block logs. Evidence is neither "uncalled for" nor a personal attack. It might be time for you to look at the block logs and the associated noticeboard reports. That hopiakuta is still blocked speaks volumes about the Misplaced Pages community, which I'm sad to report, I've lost all respect for. Viriditas (talk) 02:20, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Straight to the ad-homs, nice. I did miss the like, you're correct; that does not give you license to go straight to the insults. Your comment that was uncalled for was stating that users (and ViriiK in particular) just try to get rid of things that are "different." You weren't discussing evidence, you were just disparaging another user.

As to your comment about your level of respect for "the community:" "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn." — The Hand That Feeds You: 12:36, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

It's directly discussing the evidence—evidence that apparently you refuse to look at when pointed to it. Users like ViriiK have reported hopiakuta over and over again for this same thing, assuming bad faith the entire time, and the reports and blocks show that. There is no ad hominem or insult here at all. It's perfectly obvious you don't give a damn, which is why I have no respect for users like you. You've never commented about the discussion or Hopiakuta at all; instead you've gone on and on about your own personal misinterpretations of what you think someone might have said instead of what was actually said and what the evidence shows. Those type of comments are quite distracting and annoying and pretty much demonstrate the problem with the community. Instead of getting down to brass tacks and investigating the problem, you've created your own. What an incredible waste of time! You're good at generating drama and distracting the discussion, but poor on reading what others are saying and understanding what you've read. Viriditas (talk) 19:28, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Now there's the pot calling the kettle black. I understand, I simply disagree with you. That it drives you to such vitriol & self-proclaimed superiority just tells me you need a break. — The Hand That Feeds You: 16:23, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

• If you two are done snarking at each other, perhaps we can get back to the question at hand. I strongly believe unblocking Hopiakuta is a good idea, because:
  • They are operating in good faith; comments about SEO or trolling or trying to infect others with Malware are 100% off target
  • Historically, most of their edits have been useful
  • Those that aren't really useful (like some of the recent redirects) are not really harmful either, and can be fixed fairly easily.
  • If you make the effort to understand what Hopiakuta is saying, you will see that they are often correct on the underlying issue
  • If you don't want to make the effort to understand what Hopiakuta is saying, you can ignore them without harming yourself, or the encyclopedia.
  • It's good for us to have some good faith editors with a very non-mainstream approach. Helps avoid groupthink.

I'm not around enough to replace Xeno as a mentor (for lack of a better word), but am willing to look in from time to time, or be pinged by someone with questions. Looks like one or two others in this thread might be willing as well. That seems a better way to go. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:28, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I do not believe that unblocking an editor who is simply not able to communicate with others in an understandable manner - as their continued contributions indicate - is beneficial to the project. We are a collaborative project, and without communication, no collaboration is possible.  Sandstein  06:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

"...simply not able to communicate with others in an understandable manner..." is an unhelpful exaggeration. If this is your sole rationale for the block, then you should unblock. --Floquenstein's monster (talk) 18:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I came upon this user's condition and block totally by accident and decided to look into their history. I believe the editors above arguing his case have raised very important points and I agree with them totally. If Misplaced Pages is a collaborative project, then that means working together as a team to built an encyclopedia, from all experiences and knowledge regardless of disability, ethnicity, religious beliefs, gender, etc. Someone who may not be a "meanstream editor", can certainly bring a different dimension and add something of value to the project, knowledge which others do not possess. Blocking them on the grounds of their limitations (which is exactly what is happening here) is contracdictory to the spirit of Misplaced Pages. Yes, Misplaced Pages is not a therapy, and a certain degree of competency is required, however, this editor seems to have been doing well when he was under the mentorship of Xeno. If other editors who have interacted with him are willing to assist, then I find no justifiable reason for not unblocking this user. To my understanding, "colaboration", in order to build an encyclopedia of knowledge is the spirit of Wiki. Although other policies are very important, they are secondary to what Wiki was originally meant for. I stand corrected if I am wrong in my analysis. And for the record, I undertand exactly what Hopiakuta is saying because I want to know, and have taken the time to understand it. In that regard, I agree pretty much with Floquenbeam. Tamsier (talk) 09:34, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

• I've been looking over their remarks on their talk page, and I can't make any sense out of it at all. The only thing I can say for sure is that they have not provided a coherent reson they should be unblocked. If they can't or won't do that, even with help, I can't say unblocking them sounds like a good idea. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

  Should it be the proper time to restrict access to the talk page by now? He seems to be playing around with it as much as he did to articles and other talk pages.—Ryulong (竜龙) 23:32, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

  No. I'm having a conversation with him, and he's not disrupting anything. --Floquenstein's monster (talk) 23:58, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

  Only on Misplaced Pages is communicating with another user considered "disruption". Viriditas (talk) 02:33, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

  I don't think your conversation includes this addition to the section title or whatever these edits concern.—Ryulong (竜龙) 02:44, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

  And, there's nothing wrong with those edits. Viriditas (talk) 02:47, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose the block. It's not that hard to understand this user. I've been reading through a lot of archives and past discussions for a few hours regarding this user and the problem isn't in his edits, which are usually good, but with his communication. That's the same reason for this block and discussion. From what I can piece together, his problem is antiquated equipment combined with several disabilities. His contribution is mostly redirects which are nearly always kept and is useful. He's been contributing for at least 6 years with over 6000 edits and in that time there have been few incidents taken to this and other noticeboards. He's definitely a benefit to Misplaced Pages and I don't think the difficulty to communicate with him is a good enough reason, since it's not impossible to piece together what he's saying. Acoma Magic (talk) 06:39, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Since I just realized that this user was being debated again to unblock this user. I wasn't informed that Viriditas was questioning why I reported this user. Even though his edit history was odd, I found in his contribution history that he operated malicious websites all of which he had linked here at Misplaced Pages. They were his own websites that were redirect loops to a malware websites see : , , , . Also his own websites apparently mirrored articles of Misplaced Pages which if a user on the internet had come across one of his articles, they would have been sent to the malware website. WP:ELNO applies here. He claimed that he doesn't have the expertise to operate them but I find that odd since he still owns those websites and still linked them here recently. If he wants to truly get unblock, he needs to fix his websites first and remove the redirect loops to malware websites. ViriiK (talk) 09:08, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Support the block. Linking to malware is terrible. Doing it repeatedly with signs that you control the links and/or the malware is absolutely not the kind of behavior that can be tolerated here, even if the editor was perfectly capable of communicating and a big-time large-scale contributor. --Nouniquenames (talk) 01:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• I'm planning on unblocking Hopiakuta in a little while. There is no consensus here for a block, nor for an unblock, and it's just dragging on and on now. Lack of consensus about a block should default to unblock. I have a great deal of respect for Xeno, and believe that if he was still active this whole mess would likely not have happened. Because this is not a case of an inappropriate block, I'll agree to "own" the unblock, and will keep an eye on Hopiakuta's contributions, and will step in if necessary. It is possible a future block might become necessary, but I hope not. I think the accusations of intentional linking to malware are seriously uncool, but agree that links to that page shouldn't be re-added, accidental though it may have been (see Hopiakuta's explanation on his talk page). --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
• One of the diffs mentioned above is mine. That may have been my first interaction with them, and I did call that 'gibberish'; in the context of its place, an article talk page, I believe (and still do) that it was justified to revert. If memory serves me right, I tried to engage the user on their (a?) talk page--one of the ones with a really long name, and I can't find it in the history of the 'regular' talk page. I talked this over with Floquenbeam as well, and concluded that I personally couldn't make heads or tails of it and that, as long as the user wasn't making such odd edits in mainspace, that I should leave it alone, which I did, and that if I didn't understand something it isn't necessarily the other party that's at fault. I don't understand the antiquated machinery argument--but that came from Xeno, whom I consider to be older and wiser than me. Floq, you probably mentioned the word "mentoring" in those conversations as well. I know little or nothing about malware and will leave that to the experts--in the meantime, I don't think this is something the community can't handle in other ways than blocking and am content with Floq's unblock. Drmies (talk) 04:22, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• < http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=user_talk:hopiakuta&diff=505044401&oldid=505030811 >.

hopiakuta Please do sign your communiqué .~~Thank You, DonFphrnqTaub Persina. 06:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

don't know how anyone can even pretend they are able to have a coherent conversation with this user. If Floq is somehow able to parse some meaning out of this cryptic weirdndes, I hope they are ready to act as a translator so that those of us that can find no meaning whatsoever in the majority of this users comments are not left wondering how they translate into some sort of understandable English. This is a collaborative project. It is difficult to colanorate with someone who is basically speaking their own language and often seems not to have even read comments before replying to them. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:10, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is likely quite true, as even my grammar, punctuation, syntax, spelling, et al, are completely different, & I never read anything on this page, as I cannot; I am incapable.

• the “love point” (point d’amour: )
• the “certitude point” (point de conviction: )
• the “authority point” (point d’autorité: )
• the “acclamation point” (point d’acclamation: )
• the “doubt point” (point de doute: )

hopiakuta Please do sign your communiqué .~~Thank You, DonFphrnqTaub Persina. 07:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Whereas this is internet, I do opt for « cryptic wiredness » & rather than « colanorate », I do try to « colonorate » with this okole cabal.

hopiakuta Please do sign your communiqué .~~Thank You, DonFphrnqTaub Persina. 08:30, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

So you edit with "cryptic wiredness" by choice? The okole cabal is not pleased.--Atlan (talk) 09:45, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Linking to malware, says he is "incapable" of reading this page but responds to posts here anyway, and states that he's trying to be difficult to understand... why are we still debating this? I'm sympathetic to those with disabilities, but this is just intentional trolling. — The Hand That Feeds You: 13:30, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I do find that ψ is on the punctuation page; but, does not link to irony_punctuation, which does amount to its own ψ. Anyhow, you do pretend to not comprehend the ψ that in each very accusation comment, you contradict that accusation with other evidence.

I have not crossed much more ocean than to drown, so, therefore, I only, likely, know American English, which, I think, is devoid of « weirdndes  », « colanorate  », as is this website, other than this webpage. Please do quit the pretense.

I am not capable of your « ...grammar, punctuation, syntax, spelling, et al,... » which I have said, is true, & is ψ.

I have no idea how to create malware @ all. What I know about these machines is entirely by trial & error, except that, a few times, people have shown me where is the electric power button, as well as some of the other relatively tiny minuscule elements of operation.

Your sympathetic is certainly stated in the further irony.

hopiakuta Please do sign your communiqué .~~Thank You, DonFphrnqTaub Persina. 15:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I...what? Look, I'm sympathetic to how annoying and sometimes error-prone disability-accomodating software and such can be. Something like that could explain the formatting, the weird linking habits, etc. But The complete lack of sense in these comments alarms me. I just looked over your most recent article edits, Hopiakuta, and it looks to me like those (and their edit summaries) don't make much more sense than your talk comments. Now that Floq has unblocked you, you need to really, really make an effort here - and again, I acknowledge that that might be a pain in the ass to do, depending on what technical accommodations you use - to make yourself understandable. As much as many people are willing to accommodate and help you, we can only do that if you give us something to work with. If you remain incomprehensible to all but two or three people on the entire project, the good we're assuming you can do here is going to end up outweighed by the fact that no one can make sense of the good. P.S. Your signature is sort of a disaster...any chance you're willing to neaten it up so it's shorter and links more prominently to your userpage and talkpage? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, I know that millions, even billions, like to call disabled troll; but, much like my opinion of niggerhead, kike, et al, I do interpret it as equally racist,...... handicappist, handicappism. Each of these can, only, be justified either by linguistic commentary or by a truly excellent pun.

Also, I have, accurately, stated my name for six years, including @: user_talk:hopiakuta/editnotice.

hopiakuta Please do sign your communiqué .~~Thank You, DonFphrnqTaub Persina. 15:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The unblock by Floquenbeam of Hopiakuta is disruptive, in that it went against the consensus expressed in this discussion, and also in that it enables Hopiakuta to continue making edits that many editors have considered to be problematic at best, while at the same time being incapable or unwilling of communicating meaningfully. Frankly, anybody who writes this amount of pure nonsense is either considerably mentally disabled or a troll; in either case they should not contribute to a project that contains much-read biographies of living persons. I consider Floquenbeam to be personally responsible for any continued disruption on the part of Hopiakuta.  Sandstein  16:18, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

@Sandstein, please focus on the facts. Expressing your opinion is a good thing for the project. Uncivil comments affects everyone's moral, thus its harms the community. It also a waste of characters. :-) You don't seem to know what a "considerably mentally disabled" person is. From my experience as a student in occupational therapy, such people are absolutely unable to edit a complex website such as Misplaced Pages - even most normal people don't figure out how it works. Let alone using such a varitey of words, complex sentences, jokes, and cynical humor. According to your definition, I would be mentally handicapped myself.

I'm not against nor in favor of a block, as interaction does seem difficult. Just remain fair. For now, there is no consensus to block him so he should stay unblocked. As for taking people's time, I guess this whole AN/I affair did take more time than Xeno gave to mentor Hopiatuka. So let's move on and put our brains to more rewarding tasks. Cheers, Dodoïste (talk) 17:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• Was expecting to be near a computer this morning but I'm not. Will comment at AN in a couple hours. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC) (copied from user's talk page.) Chedzilla (talk) 16:52, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure the unblocking was necessarily wrong, but I also do support the initial blocking for the hassle alone - while those familiar with the editor can ignore the weirdness, there are many other editors on the project who are not familiar with it. That this seems to come up again and again is evidence of that, and of the time wasted each time as someone else tries to make sense of it, and that's just the times the matter makes it here. Plenty, myself included, have wound up on one of the various and bizarre talkpages for some reason or other, gotten a response that was at best confusing and more often just plain nonsensical, and brought in others to see if they could figure it out... before finally just giving up and leaving. Now I suppose we could mandate a large sign on the userpage or something saying 'this user makes no sense; ignore it', but that... I dunno, just seems kind of wrong.

Point is, while I believe those who say he means well, the fact of the matter remains that if the assistive technology is so lacking and the editor himself doesn't care, then there is a problem here regardless of intent. It is affecting other people, and I'm not so sure the good edits do make up for it in light of some of the more recent weirdness as well as the cleanup in general that is oft required, and the much confusion that results even when it isn't. -— Isarra ༆ 17:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this is a matter of the assistive technology failing. What I can garner out of these bizzarre comments is that this user doesn't care that we cannot understand them and is deliberately making vague replies that seem to be an attempt to show how clever they really are. Disability is not the issue here or I would be completely on the other side of it. Being arrogant and self centered knows no race, gender, creed, or level of physical or mental ability. There is a long established precendent on this site that at some point we quit babying people who cannot or will not effectively communicate with others. Floq chose to ignore that precedent, and as I'm sure he is fully aware he has the second mover advantage in his pocket now. Of course he also used his admin tools in a situation he is bery much directly involved in since he was the principle advocte for unblocking. I stronlgy suggest that he re-instate the block, with no comment on its merit if he likes, and allow an impartial uninvolved party to determine what, if any, consensus is reflected in this discsussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I've read through a lot regarding this user and the problem is poor assistive technology combined with several disabilities. He's not trolling or being intentional difficult. According to him, typing normally as we do causes a lot of pain. He's obviously using some sort of equipment to edit in this way, the best he can. Unless his edits on the whole damage Misplaced Pages, then difficulty communicating with him is a weak argument for blocking. Acoma Magic (talk) 19:10, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• I've advised Hopiakuta not to post anymore to this thread, so claims of "disrupting WP:AN" shouldn't happen anymore. Claims that he is disrupting his user page by posting things there that some can't understand make no sense. Claims of disrupting the actual encyclopedia will have to wait and see what happens. I hope not.

I have never interacted with Hopiakuta before this thread started; I am not previously involved with him. I made very clear the rationale for the unblock; it wasn't because there was consensus for an unblock, but there was no consensus either way, which should default to an unblock. I am no more involved in this than Sandstein; he was a principle advocate for blocking, and then did so, and it would be silly to fault him for that. I deserve the same, though I don't expect it.

It seems unproductive to continue the part of this thread about whether Hopiakuta's past editing was disruptive. I've given him another chance, and I suggest we see what happens. I've added my name to the big sign at the top of his page, so if someone is puzzled by something he does, hopefully they will ask me to help clarify, if I can.

Obviously I think the part of this thread about what a bad faith, disruptive, involved admin I am should die too, but if people feel there is some new viewpoint not yet expressed, I'll continue to read every word of it, and reply where appropriate. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Good unblock. All that is different is not wrong; if posting odds things in talk space is grounds for blocking I've got a long list of editors... Nobody Ent 20:02, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not "different" that's the problem. I've worked with people using accessibility software to help them type before. This? He seems to be deliberately obtuse, combined with "

I am not capable of your « ...grammar, punctuation, syntax, spelling, et al,... » which I have said, is true, & is ψ."

Where ψ, if I'm parsing correctly, is supposed to indicate sarcasm. So, it's both true and sarcasm... uh, okay.

Not going to contest the unblock, but my AGF has run out on this one. — The Hand That Feeds You: 20:11, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Is there a reason his signature has to take up a whole line on the screen, too? That's a bit unnecessary because it has absolutely nothing to do with his disability and it's just disruptive.—Ryulong (竜龙) 23:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• I'm more than happy to support Floq's efforts here. While I admit that on first read, Hopiakuta's discussions are difficult for /me/ to follow - if another editor is willing to work with someone to bring them into an acceptable editing style, then I fully support that effort. Chedzilla (talk) 10:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

This discussion has gotten a bit long, so I could see how you missed the point that this has already been tried. It didn't work. I deal with disabled people on a daily basis at my job. I can't see how any disability or flawed assistaive technology can explain a reply like the one above, with all the nonsense about "the love point" etc. This is a user who is deliberately not communicating clearly because they don't want to and they are blaming it on a disability because it's an easy thing to hind behind if you want sympathy. And of course he cries discrimination when it is pointed out. is it discrimination that we do not allow blind people drive cars? Is it discrimination that deaf people cannot find work as telephone operators? Is it discrimination when a quadrepalegic cannot get a job as a bicycle messenger? No. It is also not discrimination when we tell someone who refuses to even try and commuicate in a sensible fashion that they cannot be part of a collaborative project that relies on commmunication to accomplish its goals.I remain convinced that this is a problem of their own making. Plenty of folks with very serious disabilities manage to particpate here without such issues. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:34, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you might be right on the spot - although we can't really know for sure. But Hopiatuka's contributions in article space seems to be okay at a first glance. I still don't see a good reason for a block. Cheers, Dodoïste (talk) 22:09, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

There's still stuff like usurping this AN report and turning it into a scratchpad to get sorted out. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:20, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

6 years is a long time to troll. Acoma Magic (talk) 23:52, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• This thread has been open more than 2 weeks. We may all disagree on whether Hopiakuta has been "disruptive" in the past, but he is not currently disrupting anything, and the unblock seems not to have resulted in catastrophe, and I'll do my best to take over Xeno's spot going forward. At this point, every casual comment in this thread resets the archive clock back to 48 hours. Can we please either (a) close this (obviously I can't/won't do this myself), (b) rename this thread to "Floquenbeam is disruptive and unfit to be an admin", since that is the only conceivable remaining issue, or (c) at least sign but not date our comments, so this can finally be put to bed in 2 days? Floquenbeam (talk) (fourteen thirty-six Aug 3rd)

Question about protection

I have just fully protected Syria for a week as a result of an content dispute. However, the article was previously semi-protected until October because of persistent vandalism. I have no intention to remove the semi-protection that is already in place, as the full protection is for a different, shorter-term issue. However, when the protection expires, the semi-protection will also be lost (as happened at Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories). Is there a way to prevent the current semi-protection from expiring when full protection expires? If not, is it worth talking to the developers about? Thanks. ItsZippy 15:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The logical solution would obviously be to reinstate the semi-protection once the full protection has expired. I take it you're specifically looking for a technical peripheral where you can fully protect an article for a specified period of time, and upon its expiration will revert to semi-protection until a pre-determined date? I'm thinking it might actually be a good idea to speak with the developers about exploring the ramifications of enabling such a feature. Master&Expert (Talk) 01:38, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• It is manual Zippy. I'm guessing they are different states of the same bit, not different bits, so you are changing the state, not adding a new state. That comes up all too often, actually, and you have to remember to check back later, read the log, apply the semi-protection back, etc. It is not an optimal system. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:49, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. I thought it might be manual; that's annoying. ItsZippy 15:13, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Edit filter permissions requests

My own request and someone else's request have not been answered by anyone there. Can there be eyes on that page?--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:27, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Sock puppetry Notice

I have already reported User:J77890 in the sock investigation archive of User:Mughal Lohar here. But no action has been taken from last two days. Request for a quick action. Milescoast.wiki (talk) 06:22, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

That's because you edited the archive and nobody noticed. If you have evidence of sockpuppetry, please file a case at WP:SPI. Thanks ​—DoRD (talk)​ 11:04, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposed community ban of User:Doughnuthead

After noticing the extensive amount of vandalism this user has caused to the encyclopaedia, and this diff which clearly shows his persistent activity, I feel that a community ban is warranted for this long-term troll. His attacks on various editors (namely User:Boing! said Zebedee and User:thejadefalcon) are vulgar and persistent, and I feel a ban would help get the message he is not welcome here.--RedBullWarrior (talk) 11:10, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Dougnuthead is a sock of an indef banned user. The primary account has multiple declined unblock requests and is therefore defacto banned -- there's no benefit to WP to have a ban discussion. Nobody Ent 11:24, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Nobody Ent, as much as I see your point that no one will unblock him, a community ban would make it more 'official' that he is banned and alert other users who do not know him to know who he is. Also he is not a sock of an indef blocked user, he is the sockmaster of these 30 odd accounts. And if you look at User:XxTR1CKZzxx's talk page, you'll see the users there were considering unblocking him subject to him agreeing to conditions (which he ultimately didn't and gave away it was him). That itself perfectly warrants a ban, as far as I'm concerned.--RedBullWarrior (talk) 11:37, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Apparently the person behind the account is already community-banned. Why community-ban the person again? Banning yet another sock account is simply feeding the trolls dangerouspanda 11:40, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Which account was he banned under? 28bytes (talk) 12:42, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

No people, Doughnuthead is e master account behind these sockpuppets. From what I can see there is no community ban linked with him or his socks anywhere at all. It would not be feeding the trolls, simply dealing with a constant pest. Cheers.--RedBullWarrior (talk) 11:48, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

28bytes, he has not been banned officially yet (although I did take the liberty of placing a banned template on his page per Nobody Ent's comment above. If anyone has an issue with this please contact me.--RedBullWarrior (talk) 12:57, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think placing such templates based on a decision by a single non-admin is a terribly good idea. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:44, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

• I reverted that tag as he isn't banned, and adding that only makes it confusing. Seriously, this starts to become feeding the trolls and giving them new trophies. De fact banned means anyone that would need to know can easily see that the user should be treated as banned even if he isn't. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:45, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support - He has exhausted all patience with the community. With the sockpuppeter on the loose, we should put this user in its place. With that said, enough is enough. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 14:52, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
• Waste of everyone's time, and giving him the publicity he wants - just revert on sight, block and ignore. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:53, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Just adding my own support, as I am the proposer of this. Also, can anyone contact Thejadefalcon about this discussion, see what his position on this is.--RedBullWarrior (talk) 15:25, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Support - I certainly don't like the idea of non-admins slapping BANNED templates on errant users' pages either (as RBW has done), but I think this user has long since rendered himself ineffective to the project as far as positive contributions are concerned. I'm reading his talk page right now. I just shake my head at how he has abused the unblock template to no end and some of his lines like to quote unblock request #3 (denied by Peridon), "Oh my god... you are such a fool. I have much more than 17 other accounts. Theyve all been used in the exact same way but whether or not they actually exist is for your stupid checkuser to find out," is actually nothing more than hot air when someone calls BS on his promises to behave. Like he's even proud that he has a truckload of socks. Get him out of here and tell him to take a hike, because like his handle states, he really is a doughnut - got nothing in the middle. --Eaglestorm (talk) 16:43, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I've suggested an edit so we don't have to do this every month or so Wikipedia_talk:Banning_policy#Quick_question Nobody Ent 15:59, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - I don't understand the point of this. He's already indefinitely blocked, so why are we having a discussion about imposing a community ban? He's technically restricted from editing, so I don't see any point in enacting a ban.—Yutsi / Contributions ( 偉特 ) 05:18, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Yutsil, he has continued attacking the site and harassing other users since 2009, and continues up to the present day. It's clear that he's just not getting the message here, so a ban is appropriate to show him that he is totally not welcome here. If he stays only indeffed then he may think that we are still tolerating his actions. However a ban would show we're not putting up with him anymore, see what I mean?--RedBullWarrior (talk) 09:16, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your well-meaning suggestions, but you really don't think he already knows that, and you think a formal ban will make one iota of difference to him? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:59, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

User rights for the Education Program extension

Hi! I'm seeking feedback for the configuration of user rights on the revised version of the Education Program extension, which we're hopeful can be deployed in the next few weeks. The user rights configuration will be rearranged to avoid a Wikimedia staff role as bottleneck or control point for the user rights. Please take a look at the proposed configuration and give feedback. The nominal plan would be to have bureaucrats control the "Education Program administrator" flag, which would be the main right for controlling other user rights and administrative features within the new "Education Program:" namespace. Thanks!--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 18:41, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

(As the signature suggests, I'm now working for WMF. I'm essential the community liaison for the education program, so please feel free to bring related issues and frustrations to me. -Sage)

What administrative action or issue are you asking for? Do you realize that this board is for issues which require administrative review and action, not for general discussion? Simply because you work for the WMF (this is yet unproven) does not mean you can violate policies of the English wikipedia. 65.96.75.57 (talk) 01:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

This page is for "General announcements, discussion of administration methods, ban proposals, block reviews, and backlog notices." In other words, issues that you'd like to bring to the notice of administrators as a group. The Education Program extension and its configuration is such an issue, and I don't see how my posting was inappropriate.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 02:00, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Again, this board is for administrative action, not for you to WP:canvass for support for your pet project. In addition your supposed position within the WMF is still uncertain. 65.96.75.57 (talk) 02:23, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

• Two points. The first is that the IP above, as well as the main account, have been blocked for WP:SCRUTINY reasons. This was done by other checkusers, but I think it only fair to note this.

  My second point is that I believe it's inappropriate for the WMF to create its own namespace on this project, and further to institute user rights over which this project has no control. This namespace is going to be used only for the administration of WMF-certified education programs. They have their own Outreach wiki to do this, making interwiki links where necessary. I can think of a few possible additional namespaces that this project might want to consider. Having a separate namespace, with its very own special user rights attached to it, for the purpose of administering a WMF program, is very far down the list of "good reasons for creating a new namespace" in my mind. Although this is probably a fait accompli, I will still point out that Misplaced Pages is not a hosting service, not even for the WMF. I've also commented at the link added by Sage. Risker (talk) 04:50, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Unblock request from Kmarinas86

Kmarinas86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) filed an unblock request on UTRS. I believe this request would benefit from more input, so I'm placing it here with permission of the user in its entirety:

• Why do you believe you should be unblocked?
  • I am sorry for disclosing personal information I disclosed about a certain individual, which I orginally intended to be a way to show that this person was not a shill. It upset me that this individual was being construed by another peson as someone that, in my opinion, he is not. What came after that I did not expect at all. The person who I was trying to establish correctly the identity of, surprisingly to me, did not appreciate what I did. Out of some sort of desperation, I lashed out at the other person who I felt was bearing false witness on this guy. Well, that is in the past, and I want to show that I can return to being the polite Misplaced Pages editor that I have been for years. Sincerely, Kevin Marinas
• If you are unblocked, what articles do you intend to edit?
  • Raelism articles
  • Various math articles
  • Automation articles
  • other articles which I have edited in the past.
• Is there anything else you would like us to consider when reviewing your block?
  • You may look at my previous edits on Misplaced Pages, which are many thousands. What I did as of recently was an abberation, partially carried from some real life problems with some family members, who don't feel confident about my financial risks that I have chosen to take with my present employer. This argumentative behavior caused me a kind of passing angst, because I do not regret the risks I have taken. I wish the best of my future relationship with the members of Misplaced Pages. Sincerely, Kevin Marinas

I know nothing of the case myself, so input from people who are more in the know would be welcome. I find the request in itself to be reasonable. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:41, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

works for me. Unblock

.Nobody Ent 01:27, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

• I have no qualms with an unblock if the user realises that what he did was wrong (which he seems to). — foxj 14:49, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Same here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:39, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Agree with foxj. — Ched :  ?  15:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• I have no problems with the user being unblocked. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:48, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

• I've unblocked them, this is more discussion than most unblock requests ever get, and we've got the blocking admin agreeing to it. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:02, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello? Votes, anyone? Please read!

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

I'm posting this here because this is one of Misplaced Pages's most public pages, and there's not really a general community noticeboard, at least as far as I know. I'm not trying to canvass; what I'm doing is kind of like relisting an AfD discussion and linking to it in a very public place so a consensus can be reached. I'm holding a vote on the top 10 lamest edit wars in all of Misplaced Pages's history, but only one editor has voted in almost a month. See here: Misplaced Pages talk:Department of Fun#A vote on the top 10 lamest edit wars. I just want people to vote, that's all. Thank you. ChromaNebula (talk) 02:03, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be more appropriate to post this over at the village pump. You could also post it over on Misplaced Pages talk:Lamest edit wars.—Yutsi / Contributions ( 偉特 ) 05:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Non-admin edits to Misplaced Pages:List of banned users

For discussion - there is not currently any ban or protection on non-administrator edits to the list of banned users. Obviously much mischief over long term scales could be caused by misinformation there, and its more than usually sensitive to conflict behaviors.

Should we be considering protection at some level? Or is watchlist monitoring "enough"? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:13, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

• I would consider watchlist monitoring. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:15, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

No need for non-admins to edit that page. Full protect it. Administrators can update it at the same time as they close the discussion that results in the ban. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Adminship is only extra tools not any special trust. Why would you full protect a page and encourage such a position? Adminship is no big deal. 65.96.75.57 (talk) 02:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

• I would think that it would be an admin only page, although I don't know if there is a hard rule, simply because blocks and ban determination tend to be admin functions, and it is easy to make a good faith mistake. It is about accountability. And IP, quoting Jimbo on "not a big deal" doesn't make it true. This is one of the biggest websites in the world, so there is some responsibility involved and required. Quoting that is very 2002 of you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:42, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Well what is the page? Is it a list of banned users, or is it a place to add whatever thought you want to add about a particular banned user on a particular day? If it's just a list of banned users, then only administrators can close a discussion with that outcome, so their editing the list should be fine. If it's a "let's say bad things about people" place, then why is it there? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

All right. First of all, I would like to owe everyone a sincere apology for my unintentional personal attack on the banned users page. I am fully aware of the no personal attack policy, and I believe it was a good faith mistake on my part, and I did not intend to break Misplaced Pages protocol in doing so. Now, if I would consider either full protection or watchlist monitoring, I think watchlist monitoring may be a necessary measure in this matter, because as User:Dennis Brown pointed out to me, it is probably not really a good page for a non-admin to edit only because of the potential ramifications of an improper addition to this page, and that would be a very easy mistake to make. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

• I only think this list should be kept in orderly fashion. If user X was banned, there should be an official closing of the banning discussion by an uninvolved administrator. Then, a simple notice that user X was banned, with appropriate links and conclusion made by the closing administrator should be included in the list. Such records would be fully consistent with policy. But most records in the list are just fine, so I do not see any pressing problems out there. My very best wishes (talk) 03:38, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

• • This looks like a solution in search of a problem. In the absence of any history of serious vandalism or mischief on the page, having a number of admins and long-term editors add it to their watchlist would seem to be sufficient. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:58, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

• There's no reason to restrict this page to admins-only. It's just like any other page. Maybe more admins need to watch it. Keep the permanent semi-protection if you must, and don't restrict it from the other good-faith editors who help out the comparatively miniscule admin force (who can't be everywhere all the time). Doc talk 06:53, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Agree with Doc9871, there is no reason to restrict the page to administrator only. It's a list of banned editors, something that can be easily verified by checking the blocked user and adjusting the page for administrators and non-administrators alike. In fact, as it seems the number of active administrators is slowly growing smaller, this actually compounds the problem. Regards, — Moe ε 09:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• I see no reason to restrict ths to admins only. I do think that semi protection is necessary here, but not full. In fact, there is one reason for non-admins to edit this, and that is to remove reports of expired bans. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• The proper response to an erroneous edit is to revert it. The page exists to provide a certain link location to actual ban statements, no significant harm comes from a transiently incorrect entry. Given the shortage of active admins, we should only require admins to do actual admin functions, not gnome stuff. Nobody Ent 16:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

• If this came through as a request at WP:RFPP (which is currently backlogged by the way) my reaction would be Declined – Pages are not protected preemptively.. Semi seems warranted, but this one minor incident, for which the user has already apologized, does not warrant full indef protection. Disruption would have to be pretty severe to justify that. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• I'm surprised that this isn't protected. Why would non-admins need to edit this list? It's not like the page has a backlog.—Yutsi / Contributions ( 偉特 ) 17:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Help needed

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

Rather than post this at several noticeboards, I was wondering if an administrator could help with the vandalism described at Misplaced Pages:Australian Wikipedians' notice board#Inappropriate moves by tag-teaming new editors. A number of editors, it seems have been doing some tag-team vandalism. At least, it looks like vandalism - it involves page moves and creating purposely ambiguous categories, in an effort to make University of Newcastle (Australia) take precedence over University of Newcastle (disambiguation). The cut and paste moves have been reverted, but I was wondering if anyone could do a speedy merge of the recently created Category:University of Newcastle into Category:University of Newcastle (Australia). I ask this here because there is no such thing as a speedy merge at WP:CFD (only speedy moves), and a category created by vandals shouldn't have to go through a long process in order to be deleted. StAnselm (talk) 06:13, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Note that there is also a thread on this at ANI. --Rschen7754 06:15, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Notification of RFC/U concerning Youreallycan

I'd like to notify the board that I've initiated a Request for Comments/User concerning Youreallycan (talk · contribs). The RFC/U can be read at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Youreallycan. Prioryman (talk) 14:30, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

"var authorId =" in thousands of refs

- a glitch in about 12,600 articles, because of a reckless editing by sume users. I just thought, maybe some bot could be used to clenup up this mess? Sometime it's var authorId = "" by, sometimes it's var authorId = "" by . --Niemti (talk) 18:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Must be something to do with the Reflinks script: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Artix_Entertainment&diff=501219180&oldid=501219041. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:16, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

And just reckless editing, because some users are just ignoring the script's own guidelines to first check if everything is okay, before saving ("When done, click the "show preview" button at the bottom of the page. If things look OK, then click the "save page" button. If things don't look OK, then fix what needs to be fixed in the preview edit window.") - and also ignoring me telling to start doing it. But it's over 12,000 articles already and something needs to be done about it. --Niemti (talk) 18:23, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/StuRat

I wanted to nominate StuRat, as I am impressed with his answers. but, he hasn't responded to this nomination (And, his contributions show that he has seen notification on talk page) Therefore I am asking any admin to delete that page. Thank you. GiantBluePanda (talk) 20:55, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Administrative backlog