Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:46, 10 September 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

Requests for closure page

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

The Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure page has a significant backlog. Posting here for any administrators interested in helping to bring it up-to-date. Northamerica1000 14:12, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

This section wouldn't have been necessary if you hadn't accidentally hidden that subpage. I have corrected your change here. Fram (talk) 14:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction, I accidently removed the closing </noinclude> in the intro when editing. The page remains significantly backlogged. Northamerica1000 20:32, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I actually think what is out of hand is the idea that an admin is needed to close a lot of these discussions. But as someone who does close a fair number of them I can tell you it is no mystery why it gets backlogged. It's work, and you tend to get yelled at a lot if you do your job right. And some of the stuff that has been there a long time is still there because nobody can figure out how to close it, or because it it is an extremely long discussion of an extremely trivial issue that is probably only of any interest whatsoever to the three or four people participating in the said discussion. Kind of a "what's the point" scenario as no matter what tou do they will just keep arguing about it anyway. However I will have a look through it and see if I can't knock down part of the backlog. Anyone else care to give it a go? By the way it is always helpful to use {{closing}} to avoid two admins working the same discussion at the same time. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:13, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I've knocked down four or five but now RL is calling. Still plenty on the pile for anyone who wants to do some reading. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:39, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I fully agree with you that an Admin is not required to close these sorts of discussions. Any uninvolved experienced editor should be able to do this - perhaps the problem is that this list is on the wrong page. Dougweller (talk) 12:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Eternity clause (part 2)

Problems again with editor User:Ofthehighest at Eternity clause. Please see Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive239#Eternity_clause for my previous posts on this. Again, I don't want to see the editor blocked: he simply doesn't understand some basics about Misplaced Pages. I'm probably not the best person to be explaining it to him at the moment. Can someone who's a better explainer please have a gentle word with him? Thanks, Lone boatman (talk) 11:23, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Lone boatman is vandalizing the eternity clause article, because he insists on his political views being read first, i.e., his opinion that Germany's Basic Law is a "constitution". He has repeatedly and in violation of the reference he cited removed the word "democracy" and supplanted it with "constitution". And when I have brought it to his attention that the reference cited is not about changing a "constitution" or the "Basic Law," but about changing "democracy," he has now added the material about other countries which already in Misplaced Pages's article "entrenched clause". He has done this only to stop people from seeing that the article is about the 'eternity clause' in Germany. Lone boatman has also been vandalizing this article by censoring me. He claims that he is able to "paraphrase" things even though he has plagiarized (and after I correct it) claims he made new changes to paraphrase -- but is instead attempting to synthesize by supplanting the word "democracy" with "constitution". He has done this repeatedly even though the article he initially referenced is not about changing a "constitution" or "Basic Law," but about changing "democracy". And now, by adding material about entrenched clauses in other countries, he is attempting to conceal the article on German's eternity clause which has the Deutsche.de comparison article called Ewigkeitsklausel (or Ewigkeitsgarantie). The 'eternity clause' is the colloquial description of this entrenched clause in Germany. And Lone boatman has also found my blog and told me in Wikipidia talk that I had the wrong opinions and he then falsely and repeatedly accused me of using my blog as a reference. He has still not apologized for doing so after I repeatedly informed him that he had falsely accused me. His intent is to stop readers from reading what I have written on Misplaced Pages's article on the eternity clause. He has repeatedly deleted accurate paraphrases I have made which have been referenced correctly. I hereby request protection for this article. I would like to complete writing it without it being vandalized. Once it is written and approved by Misplaced Pages I would like Misplaced Pages to protect the article as it protects other articles here on Misplaced Pages. Why? Because the Deutsch.de article is totally false. The German people and people around the world need to know about the 'eternity clause,' the history affecting it and the fundamental principles of Germany's democracy it intends to protect.--Ofthehighest (talk) 12:09, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I have no comment on the content of the article (admins have no higher say than anyone else on content issues), but please both be warned that if you continue to edit war at this article, you stand a very good chance of being blocked. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:30, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

My apologies: I was under the impression that reverting deletion of referenced content wasn't considered edit-warring. I will refrain in future. Lone boatman (talk) 12:53, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and Ofthehighest, when you are involved in a content dispute, you must not accuse the other party of vandalism - Vandalism has a very specific definition here, and disagreement over content or points of view is not included. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:32, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Editor Ofthehighest, I have at no point told you that you have "the wrong opinions". I note that you have also posted about me at the Dispute resolution board, claiming in this edit that "he has written to me saying that he disapproves of my views". This is bizarre fiction: I have never written to you about anything, ever, and I do not disapprove of your views. If you review my edits to the article, they clearly show that while I have indeed changed the wording of the article several times, I have never attempted to "censor" anything, only to revert repeated attempts at re-adding unreferenced WP:Original research and essay-like analysis. Other editors on the article's talk page have (before I turned up) expressed similar concerns about the WP:POV, WP:Editorializing tone of the article, but because I actually tried to edit the article for a more WP:Neutral point of view rather than simply complain about it, you've accused me of all manner of bad conduct. I don't expect to see a retraction of any of your accusations, but if you expect your claims to be taken seriously by administrators, then I suggest you provide WP:DIFFs here, showing a shred of evidence to support them. Lone boatman (talk) 19:44, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

This has also been brought up Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Ofthehighest where I have blocked Ofthehighest for 1 week for repeatedly making false accusations of vandalism against others. De728631 (talk) 18:46, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Crash message inside pages. "Failed to parse, cannot write to folder..."

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

Error Message: Failed to parse (Cannot write to or create math output directory): V_S\

Seen on: http://en.wikipedia.org/Differential_signaling

Example message inline:

To see why, consider a single-ended digital system with supply voltage Failed to parse (Cannot write to or create math output directory): V_S\, . The high logic level is Failed to parse (Cannot write to or create math output directory): V_S\, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.35.208.21 (talk) 16:45, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:57, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

This is a Java failure. Yesterday I got an update to Java version 1.6.0_35, so I suppose most people installed this too. Please be sure to enable Java Console for your system and then reload the Wiki page in your browser. That should fix it. De728631 (talk) 17:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, looks an edit conflict between RE and me. So apparently it was on the server side? De728631 (talk) 17:02, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Semiprotection not working appropriately

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

It seems that semiprotection is no longer working correctly in that non-autoconfirmed users can edit semiprotected pages. (See this edit.) Requesting his user groups returns only "*" and "User". Furthermore, new users can also apparently move pages (this was stopped by an edit filter), and requesting his user groups returns the same lack of autoconfirmed. Am I missing something, or have some bugs managed to get committed into the codebase? Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:07, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I may be mistaken, here, but Misplaced Pages:Edit filter/Requested appears to only be move-protected and not semi-protected... Salvio 19:17, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I apologise for confusing you with the wrong template. The page is rightly not semi'd, but I could not edit it. There were so many brightly coloured boxes on the edit page, that I couldn't distinguish the problem. 78.146.252.101 (talk) 19:18, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

You can always use a {{Help me}} template to request help for issues where there isn't a specific request template. Monty₈₄₅ 19:46, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Use of Threat to Resolve Dispute

It has caught my attention that, as on the surface it appears, threat was used to resolve a dispute, and, thus, I would like to bring the following for your kind perusal.

User H tan H epi tas had threatened, "Watch your mouth and accept a third opinion. If you don't, User:Chaipau should file a complaint at the appropriate section" () - while user Chaipau did file complaint as per the threat against user Bhaskarbhagawati.

To assist further, I would like to add the following as well:

• User H tan H epi tas account was created just hours ago before giving third opinion in Assam talk page.
• User H tan H epi tas account became inactive again for few days after complaining against user Bhaskarbhagawati, which shows that H tan H epi tas was created for purposes. Here is his activity log ().
• User H tan H epi tas threatened and user Chaipau implemented the threat - both users are same individual.

As per the requirements users H tan H epi tas and Chaipau are notified thru their talk page.

User Bhaskarbhagawati is also notified.

Appreciate it very much for your times. Thank you, --130.65.109.101 (talk) 19:50, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

H tan H epi tas (talk · contribs) has not edited in about 2 months, absent a positive finding at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Chaipau, I think the matter is stale. Suggesting someone file a complaint if behavioral norms are not followed is probably not wrong anyway. Monty₈₄₅ 20:04, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

• Re- supposed "use of threat": I think you need to get a life. I haven't threatened anyone. User:Bhaskarbhagawati was being rude, aggressive and accusative. I told him/her to watch their mouth and I advised User:Chaipau to take it further as per wikipedia regulations, since User:Bhaskarbhagawati did not accept the third opinion I provided. If anything, User:Bhaskarbhagawati and everybody else who stirred this up owe ME an apology. It's User:130.65.109.101 who should be checked out.

Read my reply about sockpuppetry here Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Chaipau

I really don't have the time or the mood for your games.

--H tan H epi tas (talk) 19:46, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Can't say I care for either parties tone or all the uneccessary bolding in that discussion, but there is no "threat" and the SPI is utterly without merit. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:52, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• As suspected, IP 130.65.109.101 belongs to San Jose State University, California. It has been blacklisted by dnsbl.sorbs.net and SORBS Dynamic IP Addresses. Another student who abuses the university's resources and hides behind them. --H tan H epi tas (talk) 20:30, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Happiness Mkuthawasi

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

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

I am the agent for Mr Happiness Mkuthawasi and I have created a page for him. An admin has placed a speedy deletion saying it is a hoax? Why is this? Thank you. --HisHealthAndWellbeing (talk) 00:26, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Because it is a hoax. You uploaded a picture of Steve Harvey, along with several other hoaxes you created using copyvio pictures, which you claim license to. I've indefinitely blocked the user. ⇒SWATJester 00:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Also  Confirmed:

• Jimme-Retchet (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• QuestionableThesis (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

--MuZemike 17:59, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Moreover, all three accounts are sockpuppets of Technoquat (talk · contribs). --MuZemike 18:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding User:EncycloPetey

Resolved by motion at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case that:

For using his administrator tools while involved (see evidence), the administrator permissions of User:EncycloPetey are revoked. To regain administrator permissions, EncycloPetey must make a successful Request for Adminship (RfA).

For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 14:19, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Discuss this

Gustave

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

this hurricane was in 2008 not 2002. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.250.74.20 (talk) 15:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

See Hurricane Gustav (disambiguation); there have been 3 Hurricane Gustavs, and 2 tropical storms. Storm names are routinely recycled as long as they don't cause particularly large amounts of damage or loss of life. Monty₈₄₅ 15:51, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Motions regarding discretionary sanctions and Falun Gong 2

Pursuant to two motions voted on at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment, the following actions have been taken:

• Mandated external review (MER) has been explicitly adopted as a form of discretionary sanctions. In brief, editors subject to MER are restricted from making more than minor changes to an article in the area of conflict without first gathering consensus on the article's talk page.
• Users Homunculus, Ohconfucius, and Colipon, who were subjected to MER in Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Falun Gong 2, may only appeal their sanctions to the Arbitration Committee. Editors who are sanctioned by individual administrators in the future may appeal the sanction as they would any discretionary sanction.

For the Arbitration Committee,
NW (Talk) 16:59, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Discuss this

3 revert rule breaking and Sock-puppet (?) tag-team continual bullying

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

I am suffering some personal attacks on the Talk:Karaims page , , , I want to confess that I too am no longer guilt free as I also slipped into this revert war as this user seems to be a sock puppet of Toddy1 who sometimes confuses Nozdref's edits with his own I lost track. As Toddy1, Nozdref's reverts include , and . As sockpuppet (?) Toddy1, Nozdref is also deleting my discussion comments and inserting them in inappropriate places. Nozdref has already been warned by admin on the discussion page concerning ad-hominem attacks. I have continually asked for assistance and called for constructive contributions to arrive at consensus instead of bullying, but top no avail. These two IDs are dead-set against a change even when they themselves bring up evidence calling for the rename. The final resort of these folks is to deteriorate the whole thing into personal attacks. I have an impeccable 9 year edit history on wikipedia. I would like something to be done about this please.If I have placed this message in the wrong place please can someone help. Kaz 18:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

My initial take is that you are all acting in a reprehensible manner and if the mudslinging, which you have particpated in as much or more than the users you complain about. And edit warring. You've clearly been doing that. I think some short blocks or in order here to settle this nonsense down. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Nozdref and Kaz both blocked for 24 hours. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:40, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles

Resolved by motion at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment that:

Remedy 5 (Standard discretionary sanctions) of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles is amended as follows:

The words "and British baronets" are stricken from this remedy. The Committee reserves the right to restore sanctions to this area by motion, should a pattern of editing problems re-emerge. Existing sanctions which were placed prior to this amendment remain in effect (and unmodified) until they expire or are lifted via the normal appeals process.

For the Arbitration Committee, --Guerillero | My Talk 19:57, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Discuss this

Grant Shapps

..might be worth keeping an eye on. According to the Guardian, he's been naughty. Black Kite (talk) 21:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Uncontroversial pagemove

Okay, we have a page at Usharal, and a page created back in March at Ucharal. The former has been around 4 years and has more info, but it turns out that Ucharal is the right spelling. Since Ucharal has less content, and nothing but a Wikimapia link, it can be safely speedied to make way for the page move. Ten Pound Hammer • 23:00, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure that the "ch" spelling is the correct one? Cyrillic ш is generally transliterated in English as "sh" (e.g., "Shostakovich"). "Ch" is generally the French way of transliterating it (e.g. Chostakovitch). ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Never mind. Ten Pound Hammer • 00:15, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

And anyways, ain't there an "non-controversial" section on the Requested Moves page that should be where to place this discussion? pbp 04:38, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

RFC closure

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

Moved to WP:ANRFC. Jafeluv (talk) 11:19, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Raab

Hello! There is an edit war between users Doncsesz and DITWIN GRIM. The Kingdom of Hungary was NOT part of the Austrian Empire (or Holy Roman Empire), but there was a personal union between the two country since 1526. Please, protect the article. --Norden1990 (talk) 11:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I have source (in Hungarian and also in English) about the presence of separate Hungarian forces in the Battle of Raab:

I've just blocked both editors for 24 hours (which may be being generous to Doncsesz given their history). However, please note that a) reports of edit warring should be made at WP:AN3 rather than here and b) you must notify editors you report here and at WP:ANI (and it's good practice to post notifications of reports to the other central noticeboards). As a comment, the extent of the edit warring here was horrible. I've also watchlisted the article, and will follow up on further edit warring. Nick-D (talk) 11:57, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Banning proposal for Dewan357

I really dislike formal ban proposals, but here goes one: Dewan357's status as a banned editor has been disputed by Drmies and the lack of such a formal indictment has been held out as a fig-leaf by Dewan357. As a result, I would like to see a formal ban placed on Dewan357. Why? Because of constant sock-puppeting, as documented in WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Dewan357/Archive, and his recent reappearance as

1. 69.112.76.243 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
2. 149.151.144.59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
3. 149.151.144.60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
4. 174.255.113.212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
5. 174.226.194.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
6. 174.226.194.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

—Kww(talk) 17:08, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Although Kww has provided a diff for a single edit regarding Drmies' objection, it's actually better to read the entire thread, which can be found here. Note that the portion of the dispute relevant here is not about whether Dewan357 should be community banned, but about whether he is currently "de-facto banned" and can therefore be dealt with as if he was already banned. In fact, Kww is apparently here in response to Drmies' suggestion that if he wants to deal with Dewan357 as if he is banned, he should start a ban discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

You have the time-sequence reversed: this is in response to my earlier notification to Drmies that I had opened a formal ban discussion. I don't think there's any reasonable doubt that Dewan357 is de-facto banned, and view this as merely a formality to remove that as a debating point.—Kww(talk) 22:21, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I think there's quite a bit of doubt as to whether Dewan357 is "de facto" banned, and I wouldn't call any request to ban a user as "merely a formality". I skimmed through the SPI report, and it looks to me like you've invested quite a bit of time and energy in Dewan357 and his puppets, almost like owning a sock. Perhaps that's why you're unable to see this as clearly as someone more removed from it.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• I don't care one way or the other whether this editor gets banned or not. I have some specific problems here with KWW's way of handling this whole problem, which resembles a vendetta going back three years (as the SPI, Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Dewan357/Archive, makes clear). If the editor is banned, fine--but I can't help but think it's the way in which we've handled this that has made it an ongoing problem. Please see the thread my talk page for more context, and perhaps comments on KWW's and Materialscientist's talk pages. Drmies (talk) 22:15, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Frankly, I feel that Kww made this ban request solely to give himself more ammunition while misapplying WP:BAN and wikilawyering with the same. Ryan Vesey 22:18, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

And your reason for not banning Dewan357 based on Dewan357's behaviour is ...?—Kww(talk) 22:21, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Unnecessary wikilawyering. You know that you only want Dewan357 banned for personal reasons. Any possible chance Dewan357 has of ever editing Misplaced Pages again will not be changed by the existence of a ban. Ryan Vesey 22:30, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support - Regardless of Kww's behavior, Dewan357's record as a prolific sockpuppeteer makes comminity banning appropriate. If he wants to be a prductive editor again after the ban, he should stop socking and fulfill the requireents of the standard offer. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:38, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
• Yes, you are certainly correct on the OFFER thing. Dewan has been watching my talk page, I think; maybe he's watching this as well. Drmies (talk) 22:51, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• I'm having difficulty finding the diffs, but Dewan357 has been through the BASC process, and lied about having been away for six months only weeks after having his last socks blocked. Anyone know where the BASC records are kept? If I remember correctly, my discussions with the BASC were via e-mail, and the e-mails are archived on a machine I won't have access to for a couple of weeks.—Kww(talk) 23:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• Question, aside from sockpuppetry, can someone point to this editor's problematic edits? Ryan Vesey 23:01, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• His block log is a good place to start. Originally edit-warring, followed by socking in order to edit-war after having been blocked. Note that I never blocked the original account.—Kww(talk) 23:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• I apologize, I was wondering if there have been any non-socking editing issues since 2009. (I'm not necessarily saying they don't exist; however, those wanting him banned should have provided the evidence.) Ryan Vesey 23:15, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• No one tracks the quality of his edits. Only that he socks and lies in unblock requests (as can be seen at User talk:Dewan357).—Kww(talk) 23:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• Seeing that you have no examples, my opinion is strengthened. Ryan Vesey 23:34, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
• Kww, you don't look at the quality of their edits. I did, and the ones I thought were useful I reinstated. And I have a hunch that don't articles won't be targets anymore. Drmies (talk) 01:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) In line with Ryan's question, I believe that the part of WP:BAN that Kevin is relying on for saying that Dewan357 is de facto banned is: "In some cases the community may have discussed an indefinite block and reached a consensus of uninvolved editors not to unblock the editor. Editors who remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community are considered 'banned by the Misplaced Pages community'." Yet, the SPI report is hardly a community discussion. So, what Kevin is really suggesting, in my view, is that an indefinitely blocked sockmaster at some unspecified point (persistence? prodigiousness? something else?), falls within the scope of those two sentences in the policy. But that's not what the policy says. Are we just banning him based on a pro forma recognition that he's a major sockmaster? If so, perhaps we should change the policy to permit such a ban.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:19, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• Not to be too obvious, but the socking is disruptive in and of itself, and doesn't require additional disruptive behaviors. And, yes, I would say that when an editor continues socking frequently for a long enough period of time, it does start to become bannable behavior -- and the community can determine for itself what it considers to be bannable, or not. I've seen any number of banning discussions here and on ANI based almost totally on a history of socking I see nothing different here, no ameliorating factor that would justify not banning. (Of course, some editors just don't believe that banning is necessary or effective in any case, but that's a different matter.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:43, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• I don't disagree with you, BMK, including your ending parenthetical, and I'm not opposing the ban. I just like policy to be clearer. In part, this whole thing stems from a disagreement about policy; see also Jayron's comment below--Bbb23 (talk) 00:23, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• The failed unblock requests at User talk:Dewan357 support the contention that no admin is willing to unblock him, and I rely on that as well.—Kww(talk) 23:27, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• Have you read the failed unblock requests? There have been two in 2012. Both were done only because he did not answer the three relevant questions pointed to in Hersfold's decline. I disagree with the rationale behind Selket's decline but agree with the decline itself. (He attempted to answer the questions but didn't answer them in a satisfactory manner). Ryan Vesey 23:34, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose as superfluous and gravedancing. Doesn't actually have any functional effect on how we will treat editing from this person. Defacto ban is already in existance as far as I am concerned, and if I run across this person, I intend to treat them as any other banned editor. --Jayron32 23:35, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk Vandalism

User Toddy1 is vandalising discussions by deleting user comments from discussion pages on Talk:Karaims and Talk:Crimean Karaites and moving them to inappropriate locations to hamper discussion on restoring the original name of the article in accordance with WP:UCN and WP:CRITERIA. Kaz 19:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

(Non-admin observation) This looks like a good-sized WP:BOOMERANG headed in your direction. You inserted the header "Ad-Hominem Talk" into the talk page above another user's comments, violating WP:RTP in the process. You're also edit-warring and using IP sockpuppets. This should be good. Evanh2008 01:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Evan for telling me about this report. Kaz did not.

When Kaz talks about my moving discussion from Talk:Karaims to Talk:Crimean Karaites, he/she is talking about the POV fork he/she created from a redirect page after starting a move discussion on Talk:Crimean Karaites. This was discussed at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive767#User Kaz and Crimean Karaites/Karaims POV Fork. Eventually, Kaz restored Karaims to its status as a redirect page to Karaites.

Kaz has repeatedly tried to insert the header "Ad-Hominem Talk" in front of comments by Nozdref. Both Nozdref and I object to this, but Kaz just keeps reinserting it. Nozdref was commenting on a summary of the move discussion that Kaz had written as 62.255.75.224, making it clear that he believed that Kaz and 62.255.75.224 were different people. I think the purpose of Kaz's header is to disguise this fact.

Evan is right in saying that Kaz edits some of the time as an IP editor. On Crimean Karaites and Talk:Crimean Karaites, he/she has used:

• 62.255.75.224. You can see Kaz's admission of this on . After he/she admitted this, he/she changed the signatures of his various posts as 62.255.75.224 on the talk page to Kaz. He/she had been exploiting the fact that other users thought that Kaz and 62.255.75.224 were different people before that.
• 86.26.236.107. When asked about this one, Kaz neither confirmed nor denied it. He gave part of his answer in Russian, saying that it was an intrusive question affecting his safety.
• 81.103.120.143. Notice that on one occasion this IP edited Kaz's user page. There was no protest about this from Kaz as I would have expected if the IP had been a different person. Here, the IP editor commented on Crimean Karaites. This is where Kaz some months later posts his agreement with what the IP editor said.

I suspect that the two editors in his Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Karaimism/Members are really Kaz. Their recent edit histories do suggest this. Note that this Wikiproject was created by Kaz on 29 August 2012‎.

• Special:Contributions/Muthmar Muthmar's only two edits on Misplaced Pages were the next day.
• Special:Contributions/Danage Danage had not edited Misplaced Pages since 2008, but suddenly updated his user page on 29 August and expressed support for Kaz' position on 30 August.

During the discussion, Kaz has made legal threats to Nozdref. This was discussed at User talk:Dennis Brown#Legal threats. In addition, Kaz has repeatedly made abusive comments about other users, which can be found on Talk:Crimean Karaites.--Toddy1 (talk) 04:17, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

User:IronGargoyle has broken Misplaced Pages rules

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

WP:BOOMERANG--Jayron32 01:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

You do realise that User:IronGargoyle has deleted the Fantastic Shabalanga page while the page was still in the middle of an articles for deletion discussion? See this please.

Also, under the reasons User:IronGargoyle has to delete it, this user wrote "Speedy deleted, vandalism" even though the page was not under a speedy deletion template and there was no evidence that there was any vandalism there. No one complained of vandalism, not even any admins. They just complained of notability, even though I provided an external link. --Kijoorete-Bahnhof (talk) 00:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Have you read Misplaced Pages:Notability (people) yet? I assume not, otherwise you wouldn't be wasting our time with nonsense like this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes I have read that, but I invite you to tell me what part of what I have said is nonsense? In essence all of what I have written above is true is it not? There was NO speedy deletion notice, and was NO complaint of vandalism and this user CLOSED the debate before it had finished! Please comment on that User:AndyTheGrump. --Kijoorete-Bahnhof (talk) 00:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• Reviewing the article and discussion, this seems to meet both WP:CSD#A7 and WP:SNOW in spades. I see nothing that was done wrong here. --Jayron32 00:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment suggest you review WP:AN#Happiness_Mkuthawasi too.--Robert Keiden (talk) 00:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Jayron32- The snowball clause is not policy, it reads that in the article therefore your comments do not read much. I have linked Jimbo Wales to this debate on his talk page. Clearly this is a serious matter and we need a higher power to resolve this. --Kijoorete-Bahnhof (talk) 01:01, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

However, WP:CSD#A7 is policy. I don't see how involving our founder in this will help matters.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, please don't post this in too many places, because otherwise it looks like forum shopping and/or canvassing.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• Someone please block this chap as a sock. His behavior, coupled with Robert Keiden (talk · contribs)'s link, makes it beyond obvious that he is the latest incarnation of Technoquat (talk · contribs). Goodvac (talk) 01:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

(multiple edit conflict) Kijoorete-Bahnhof sounds an awful lot like the latest Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Technoquat. Another sock User:RouteLeader recently posted to the help desk about adult diapers and so did Kijoorete-Bahnhof . RouteLeader also filed a silly complaint here as a brand new account, and posted to Jimbo . PrimeHunter (talk) 01:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Well isn't that interesting. Kijoote-Bahnof just edited Jimbo's talk page by inviting him to this thread. --Jprg1966  01:13, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Regardless of socking or not, the canvassing and the failure to listen here seem to be leading to a a hard hit for the OP, especially if they post at another place about this.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• I am indef blocking Kijoorete-Bahnhof (talk · contribs) for general disruption. He may also be a plausible sockpuppet account, but his general disruption is sufficient cause for the block. If he can convince someone at his talkpage that he is here for constructive purposes, anyone is welcome to unblock. MBisanz 01:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

You will be surprised to find that I have no idea who User:Robert Keiden is. Nor do I know what a Technoquat is either. And 'block as a sock' makes no sense to me. I believe this discussion is going off course which is why I invited Jimbo Wales. Can we please get back to the point of why User:IronGargoyle did what he did? Thank you. --Kijoorete-Bahnhof (talk) 01:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

'block as a sock' is short for "account block because you are using a sockpuppet account". I think we've explained to you enough about why IronGargoyle did what he did and didn't do what he didn't do.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:20, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

•  Checkuser note:  Likely this is Technoquat, i'm running checks for sleepers and an IP block now if possible. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 01:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Arzel consistently poor behavior

Having been subject to snide remarks by Arzel and witnessed him make such comments to others, I am making a formal complaint here. The conduct of this editor is questionable. For example, just from his last 100 edits we have:

• battleground behavior, assumptions of bad faith, uncivil discourse:

• pettifog retribution:

• clear political agenda:

I repeat: that's just cherry picked from the last 100 edits. There are so many violations of WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, and WP:BATTLEGROUND that it's not even worth counting. Also see his talk page for more.

I would very much appreciate it if admins could take a look at this and issue whatever warnings/topic bans/blocks they feel appropriate. Kerfuffler (talk) 02:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

It is quite clear that this editor is a WP:SOCK of either a previously banned user or a current user. This editor has had almost no edit history until one week ago, and has the audacity to try and get me blocked even though I have had almost no interaction with him? I think it is probably a retaliation from the Still incident a few days ago. Arzel (talk) 02:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

This report is about your conduct, not mine. —Kerfuffler 02:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

(It can very well become about you at any moment. Be aware of that Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 04:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC))

I am curious, since I have basically no interaction with you why the sudden interest? I havn't even hardly made any edits today much less any interaction with you. Only one of the edits listed above even remotely involves you. Arzel (talk) 02:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

If you must know, I believe the behavior I cited harms Misplaced Pages, wastes many people's time, and drives away positive contributions. Thanks for reminding me to state that here, but the evidence speaks for itself. —Kerfuffler 02:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Well now you are wasting my time if makes you feel better. Also, your signature removed your talk page link. Not sure if that was intentional, but you might want to fix it to make it easier for other editors to talk to you. Arzel (talk) 03:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I also was amazed and on their talk page complimented Kerfuffler on their amazing progression, able to use policy to do battle by their 20th lifetime edit, and offer complex policy reasons for deletions in battle by their 60th lifetime edit. Also by that time they were expert enough to say that the did an overall review of several experienced editors (via reviewing their talk histories) and declaring their (negative) findings on those editors overall as fact. North8000 (talk) 03:13, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm seeing a lot of bad faith assumptions from Arzel and North8000 here. Is there any evidence that Kerfuffler is a "SOCK of either a previously banned user or a current user"? If not, the both of you should shut up. Viriditas (talk) 03:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

No, it's pretty damn obvious. Regards, — Moe ε 03:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Might be obvious, but you need to tell us the "of whom"-part; otherwise, the suspicion is useless. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 04:11, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Not only is this empty sock claim a useless suspicion, it's also a transparent attempt to change the subject away from Arzel's bad behavior. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Administrative backlog