Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:45, 5 February 2015

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

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

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

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

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

Template:Active editnotice

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

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

Archives

Index no archives yet (create)

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

• WP:CR
• WP:RFCL
• WP:ANRFC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other areas tracking old discussions

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

Administrative discussions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Requests for comment

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

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

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

(Initiated 82 days ago on 28 October 2024) Participation/discussion has mostly stopped & is unlikely to pick back up again. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talk:Israel#RfC

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

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

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

•  Done. Yes you can.—S Marshall T/C 10:28, 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 12 days ago on 6 January 2025) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Arab migrations to the Levant#Merger Proposal

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

Talk:Winter fuel payment abolition backlash#Merge proposal

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

Talk:Israel–Hamas war#Survey

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

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

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

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

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

(Initiated 12 days ago on 6 January 2025) Seeking uninvolved closure; proposal is blocking GA closure czar 11:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump#Proposal to supersede consensus #50

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

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

Review of Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2015 January 8#Kirby Delauter and Draft:Kirby Delauter

The closer wrote:

There is certainly some support for moving the draft to main space, but I still see endorsing the original deletion (and salting) to be the consensus opinion.

The closer's decision to endorse the original speedy deletion was within discretion and reasonable. I do not contest that part of the close.

The closer erred in assuming that salting was the consensus opinion. Not a single editor in the DRV supported salting. In fact, after Draft:Kirby Delauter was posted, five editors commented favorably about the draft. No one commented negatively against the draft.

Because the draft addressed the undue weight and BLP1E concerns present in the deleted article, the original reasons for speedy deletion no longer applied.

Overturn the salting part of the DRV close and move Draft:Kirby Delauter to Kirby Delauter.

Cunard (talk) 23:24, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, most of the material in the draft was not really suitable for a BLP -- it's all local coverage. I support the continued salting of the article title for now. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• The DRV closer failed to be clear or explicit regarding the salting of the title. Did he overlook it, of did he consider it a question for WP:RFPP? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:17, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

It was my estimation that the consensus included salting. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:14, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it is true, that consensus supported the salting, the original action and the indefinite continuation, I rather doubt it. In any case, I think you should have said so, and pointed any desires for continued debate on the salting question to WP:RfPP. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:36, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• Just to be clear, the title wasn't salted by the DRV closer, it was salted by the admin who speed-deleted the article in the first place. The DRV was closed as "endorse" which would generally be seen as an endorsement of the close and protection together. Mine was one of the opinions on which the close was based and I can confirm I didn't really consider the issue of salting, in fact the discussion I had with Hobit and Thincat was one about recreation in draft form. The natural next step is for a draft to be moved to main-space. Nonetheless, I did "endorse" the deletion which included salting. RoySmith interpreted my comment (and others) as an endorsement of both and without explicit commentary to the contrary, I'm not sure how he could have done otherwise. It's overly bureaucratic, yes, but I'm with Joe in thinking this should go to WP:RfPP so that the protection can be removed and the draft can be published. Essentially, we all got caught up on the SD/IAR issue and ignored the protection. St★lwart 04:20, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• Yes. Go to WP:RfPP so that the protection can be removed, or not, per the consensus of discussion there. The DRV discussion did not reach a consensus on continued salting, in my opinion, due to lack of direct discussion of that specific question. RoySmith did well enough to make a clear decision on the actual question posed in the nomination. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:29, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• Absolutely, "removed, or not". St★lwart 05:07, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• I'm with Joe in thinking this should go to WP:RfPP so that the protection can be removed and the draft can be published. – RoySmith insisted that the consensus was to maintain salting despite the new article draft. The suggestion that this should go to WP:RFPP does not make sense because that would be asking an WP:RFPP admin to unilaterally overturn RoySmith's close. Cunard (talk) 06:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• Because nobody had specifically addressed the question of whether the protection should remain and so in endorsing the deletion, we were endorsing the protection. Had I (had we all) had the foresight to see it coming, we might have included a line or two ("oh, and un-salt"). We didn't address it and so Roy didn't address it in his close. Self-trout for that one! Post-close, his response makes sense. I don't think that prevents an admin at RFPP reviewing the case and making a determination about protection. I can't imagine anyone would object to them doing so. They are really overturning the original protection (on the basis that it is no longer needed), not Roy's close. St★lwart 09:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• I'd rather not start an WP:RFPP post after starting this AN request since that could be viewed as forumshopping. If you or another editor want to make the WP:RFPP post, that would be fine with me. Cunard (talk) 20:06, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• Look, it's quite clear that the only possible policy-based outcomes were to redirect to Frederick County, Maryland#Charter government if the draft didn't meet WP:N (or, say, if BLP1E is applicable), or to allow recreation of the draft if it did meet WP:N. (On this point, I'd rather not take an opinion - this whole affair has been stressful enough for me). But once the blue shield is down, there's nothing to be done except wait until attention has moved on (or the tech bloggers pick it up, and the whole mess becomes too embarassing to the project). WilyD 10:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I was going to stay out of this, but I find the blue shield dig offensive. I have absolutely no problem with the community deciding my close was faulty, and I am glad that this discussion finally got started in an appropriate forum. But I do resent the implication that I'm reflexively defending a fellow admin because of cabalistic loyalty. If you take a look at the DRV archives, I think you'll find that I've handed out more than my fair share of trout. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:31, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

If there's an argument to delete rather than have a redirect to Frederick County, Maryland#Charter government (probably the outcome I'd advocate if I weren't already sick of this train-wreck), it wasn't presented during the DRV or in the closing summary. It's a tough DRV to close (and I think you generally do a good job at DRV). But the cumulative effect of endorsing and closing as endorse is exactly how a blue shield works, little misbehaviours/overlooks/blind eyes by everyone to defend their friend/colleague's significant misbehaviour. If the point stings, that's unfortunate, but we can't avoid mentioning our problems because they're painful to deal with - then they only fester. WilyD 10:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Arguments for deletion certainly were presented at the DRV. A redirect is a poor idea since it is possible that Delauter might end up mentioned in another article (SmokeyJoe suggested Streisand effect, for example.) If a reader is typing "Kirby Delauter" in the search box, they would probably prefer a list of articles (if any) that mention him, rather than being shuttled off to a specific one. As for your doubling down on this "blue shield" crap, I have to wonder: if someone closes this thread with no action, will they too be part of the blue shield? Is the only way to avoid a charge of corruption to agree with your opinion of what should happen with the Kirby Delauter page? You seem to have ruled out the possibility that the people who agree with the deletion and salting are doing so in good faith. 28bytes (talk) 15:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Whether it is in good faith (as assumed) is neither here nor there, it is still admins preventing ordinary discussion by the use of tools and confirmation of the use of tools even where the numbers were against it, and the consensus by those who addressed it was not to salt. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:36, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, you might be assuming good faith (and if so, I thank you) but my concern is with people who are not, and who are moreover explicitly assuming bad faith and attacking the character of the people who disagree with them. Regardless, I don't see much benefit to be had in continuing to argue with you about whether the DRV close was correct; perhaps we can agree to disagree on that? 28bytes (talk) 17:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I would not think it helpful to read any of that as you do (if you give him the benefit of the doubt ie good faith) statements like "blind eye" "overlook" and even mis behavior could be negligent, not malicious, but mistaken acts (in this case) would still wind up in the same place as intentional acts. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Arguments for deletion rather than having a full article were made at DRV, no arguments were made for deletion rather than redirecting to the only page where the subject is mentioned. (The argument that under different circumstances different choices might make sense is axiomatically true, but invariably irrelevant. WP:RFD sorts out cases with multiple possible targets routinely, and never, ever, ever comes to the conclusion that deletion makes sense.) Reasonable, good faith editors can conclude that the draft/subject meets WP:N, and thus should have an article, or that the sources are mostly local, BLP1E and/or NOTNEWS applies, and thus the article should be redirected to the only page on which he's mentioned (as we would with any other politician who doesn't meet WP:N or its stepchildren). I don't believe that anyone endorsing the decision is acting maliciously, I suspect they're trying to protect their friend from having their misconduct exposed and ignoring that we're ultimately here to write an encyclopaedia. Wanting to protect ones friends is an admirable enough trait, but in this context there's no harm in having your action overturned, so there's nothing to protect them from anyways. WilyD 18:32, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

• When I !voted to overturn the speedy the matter of salting didn't occur to me (it isn't a really a DRV issue anyway). Now I re-read the DRV discussion I can't see anyone saying they supported continued salting though obviously if anyone had been in favour they might not have thought it appropriate or necessary to say so. Interestingly, the last !vote was to endorse the deletion and to allow a new draft. Cunard's draft was presented quite late in the DRV and I think it deserves (and ought to have) community discussion. I don't know the best way of achieving this. Thincat (talk) 13:27, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
• For the record I endorse both the original deletion and salting, and User:RoySmith's closing of the DRV, for the reasons I offered in the DRV. And I find User:WilyD's "blue shield" remark above (implying that everyone who disagrees with his opinion is corrupt) to be reprehensible and out of character for an editor and admin whom I've otherwise had a good impression of. The fact is, the only reason there's a draft of Kirby Delauter right now is because of a stupid remark he made on Facebook and the reaction to it. That it now contains details about Delauter's family and career as a businessman and local official does nothing to alleviate the fact that he's known for one thing. If, a couple of months from now, people still think this local politician is of lasting notability and therefore merits an encyclopedia biography, I'd be willing to reconsider my position in light of new evidence of that. Perhaps by then tempers will have cooled and there will be less of a desire to make an example of him for his ill-considered remarks. 28bytes (talk) 13:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I think the admin endorsements of the IAR speedy were well intentioned but they did give a very unfortunate impression which possibly may not be so obvious to war-weary admins. It was not a good idea to have handled a supposedly "textbook" case in a non-textbook manner. If this is the right place for community discussion about the contents of the draft (is it?) I'll give my views. Thincat (talk) 13:51, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Thincat, the proper place for community discussion about the contents of the draft is AfD. In my view, the draft complies with BLP and NPOV (and no one has suggested otherwise), so there is no pressing reason not to move the draft to mainspace and list it at AfD. If, as 28bytes notes, people want to "make an example of him for his ill-considered remarks" in the article itself, the editors can be blocked and the article can be semi-protected or full-protected as necessary. Cunard (talk) 20:06, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

And in my view, the draft doesn't show why he passes WP:NPOL. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

He doesn't have to pass NPOL if he passes WP:N. And the largest newspaper in the state wrote an editorial about him. That's mighty fine coverage. And coverage unrelated to the "one event". There is massive coverage about the one event. Hobit (talk)

• I reiterate that the salting should be undone and there was no consensus to salt, so overturn. I also think Roy Smith was wrong in his reading. He says correctly that there was not numerical strength to endorse, but ignores that fact that non-admin i-voters could not see the deleted article - so of course we were disabled in offering opinions on whatever was deleted. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:19, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

  DRV is not AFD Take 2. We don't need to be able to see the article -- we just need to see if the closing admin read the discussion correctly. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

And he read it wrong: there was no consensus to salt, there was not numerical strength to endorse, and he incorrectly discounted the views of those who could not see the speedy deleted article. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

No one requested to see the deleted article. Presumably they'd either already seen it, or felt that their !vote did not depend on what was the article content actually was. I can email you a copy of it if you'd like. 28bytes (talk) 23:05, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

28bytes, during the discussion, and still, the deleted version remains here), explicitly cited during the discussion. Final version, without attribution of course. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

NB. If it weren't for the speedy deletion, the cached version would carry an AfD notice. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks SmokeyJoe. 28bytes (talk) 00:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I now see, Smokey Joe linked to that cache version without the attribution in the discussion apparently after I participated or I just didn't see it because I took the speedy for BLP at face value that it had a really bad BLP problem, so we should not see it. None of that, however, changes the fact that the consensus was to overturn the salt, and numerically the !vote was not to endorse. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Your point is non-responsive and still supporting overturn - the closer incorrectly discounted the numerically strong views of those who wanted to allow a real attempt to write and judge in the ordinary process an article. The consensus was not to salt by those who addressed it, so he was wrong there too. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:16, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense. You say the closer "incorrectly discounted the views of those who could not see the speedy deleted article" but you provide no evidence that there was anyone who could not see it and wanted to. Cunard, for example, stated that he had read the article via Google cache. If anyone wanted to see the deleted text, all they had to do was ask. 28bytes (talk) 23:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense and again non-responsive - we could not see the deleted article and so offered no opinion on it - that is exactly what was said at the time but the closer incorrectly took that as somehow endorsing, and the consensus by those who addressed the issue was not to salt. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

You keep saying "non-responsive" like we're in court. What is it exactly that you want me to respond to? 28bytes (talk) 23:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

The closer got it wrong - I've offered why I think they got it wrong. I did not ask you to respond at all but if you do, don't go off on how we could see a speedy deleted article, when the very purpose of speedy deletion is for us not to see it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:04, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• Okay, there are a lot of issues here.
  • The deletion was out of process as was the salting. Neither the speedy nor the salting could be justified by our deletion or protection rules. The bar for endorsing such action should be very high. There is no way that high bar was met.
  • The draft had unanimous support in the discussion of all those that indicated they'd looked at it. I believe 5 people supported it and no one objected. It's hard to understand how a draft with 100% support of everyone who indicated they'd read it could be prevented.
  • The above two issues are related the (out-of-process) deletion meant that there wasn't time to try to fix the article before it was deleted. If we'd followed our regular process, we'd probably still have this article.
  • Not a single person in the discussion indicated why this article was important to speedy out-of-process. IAR should be used when there is a reason to use it, not just because someone feels like it.

Hobit (talk) 23:12, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• For the record, I think the right way forward is to move the draft to article space and allow an AfD as desired. That's where we'd be if someone hadn't been working outside of process to begin with and that's where we should get to. IMO the draft meets our notability requirement and is well above any speedy criteria--it should get a discussion. Hobit (talk) 15:16, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
• DRV reviews deletion decisions. Salting is tangential to DRV's scope: we do discuss and review it sometimes but it doesn't always receive the attention that deletion decisions receive, which I think is why this issue wasn't really bottomed out at the DRV. Personally, I think the purpose of salting is to prevent bad faith editors from perenially re-creating material in despite of a consensus. I think the salting should always be removed when a good faith editor wants to create an article in that space.—S Marshall T/C 14:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
• I am not familiar with the intricacies of DRV or salting but I wanted to weigh in here because I have read the draft and feel strongly that it belongs on Misplaced Pages. It seems that bureaucratic/administrative process is interfering with making an excellent article available. Unless I am missing something, it seems that no one can provide a reason for its exclusion from the main space, other than that this is where the process has ended up. Bangabandhu (talk) 19:34, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
• {{Do not archive until}} added. Cunard (talk) 00:25, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Review of the Closing for a WP:RFC for America: Imagine the World Without Her

I would like a review for this closing. I just don't think it reflects consensus at all, but would like others to review it.Casprings (talk) 00:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I think it's a fair close for the question "is Breitbart.com a reliable source for that statement?" However, there doesn't seem to be consensus for actually including Shapiro's statement in the article, which is somewhat at odds with "...yes it's appropriate to include that source in the way that it's currently included in the article." in the RfC closing statement. The close does not address the issue of WP:DUEWEIGHT; It merely assesses the question of reliability. My Facebook page would be a reliable source for my opinion, but unless secondary sources took note, I doubt it would make its way into a Misplaced Pages article. By the way, I do not eat children. - MrX 00:49, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I read over the RfC, the close, and the previous talk page discussion S Marshall linked to in the close, and... it looks like a perfectly reasonable close to me. 28bytes (talk) 00:53, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. I don't know enough to endorse or not endorse, but the close looks basically within discretion. I'd make two points, though. The question asked was narrower than appears to have been called for. I'll AGF, but note that this can sometimes indicate an RFC question that is not made in perfect good faith. If I had closed this, I would, therefore, have declined to reward the question with an answer about whether the material can or should be included in the article. I would probably have instead invited further discussion. There are pros and cons to this. My approach might end up prolonging the dispute. S Marshall's approach might risk interpreting answers to a very specific question too broadly (i.e. some editors may not have considered the wider issues, because they were not asked to). However, skimming the responses, I'm not sure this is actually the case. Secondly, the close appears to recognise that the source being discussed is controversial and should be attributed. I'm not very familiar with the source, so I make no judgement on this. However, being unfamiliar with the source, I'm not sure whether the words "writing for Breitbart.com" would alert me to whatever it is I need to be taking into account. Perhaps a brief characterisation of Breitbart is also needed, but this is not really mandated by the discussion. So, if I had closed this, the fact that there were issues with the source to which the discussion did not provide answers would have been a further reason for me to invite further discussion. I'm really offering these comments for S Marshall to consider and feel free to ignore - they should not be interpreted as an overturn vote. Like I said, it looks within discretion to me. Formerip (talk) 00:59, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
• Just to say that I'm aware of this discussion. The disputed wording is the stable version, or at least was in the article at the time of the October 2014 RfC which considered it. This is also at RSN and DRN, by the way. I'm happy to be overturned if editors feel I've made a mistake here.—S Marshall T/C 01:08, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

"Opinions are always citable as opinions." So if I find a statement on anyone's facebook page that compares the president to a Nazi, I can now include it in Misplaced Pages articles so long as I attribute it to the facebook account? I didn't think WP was set up to just past everyone's opinions where ever you wanted so long as you attributed them.Scoobydunk (talk) 15:58, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

The key difference here is between verifiability (is there reason to be absolutely certain that this is person x's FB page) on one hand and notability and WEIGHT. Why should anyone care what person x's opinion on the president may be, and if we do find it notable, where should it be (it's more likely to belong on person x's bio than on the president's). Guettarda (talk) 16:07, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

The hypothetical assumes the facebook page belongs to the person who said it. But, you admit there are other WP policies that apply and the statement "Opinions are always citable as opinions." is not true or sufficient. For example, WP:ABOUTSELF says that self published sources, like facebook, can't make contentious claims about others and have a whole myriad of restrictions on their use. So do you agree that those policies apply to attributed opinions from a self-published source just like weight and notability?Scoobydunk (talk) 16:24, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd say it's true, but not sufficient. And we should always prioritise secondary sources over primary ones. Guettarda (talk) 16:50, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

You say what's true? That "Opinions are always citable as opinions," or that other WP policies apply to attributed opinions as well? Please look at the policies and questions described and give a direct and succinct answer. If opinions are always citable as opinions, then there are no other policies relevant and any opinion can be cited so long as it's attributed. However, if other policies have to be met, like with the facebook "president=nazi" example, then opinions are NOT always citable as opinions and have to meet other WP standards.Scoobydunk (talk) 18:57, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

(ec)Actually WP:BLP is the policy invoked when any notable source calls a living person a "Nazi" - and it is not the fact that it is an "opinion" in that event, and as noted Facebook is exceedingly rarely usable as a source for anything at all. For material salient to an article and allowed under policy, opinions are always citable as opinions, and are not allowed to be cited as "fact" in Misplaced Pages's voice. In any event, the material does not impinge on WP:BLP in the manner some seemed to suggest, and the closure was certainly within normal discretionary limits. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for reaffirming that there are WP policies that have to be met before citing an opinion.Scoobydunk (talk) 16:24, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• The close doesn't reflect consensus and misinterprets a previous RFC as the basis for its rational. The previous RFC mainly asked if Breitbart.com is reliable for its own opinion and was allowable with regards to a review by Christian Toto. The closer agreed with that it was reliable for its own opinion but didn't address the issue of allow-ability. However, the closer admitted that the inclusion Breitbart.com into the article is an entirely separate issue here . So this close completely misinterprets the previous RFC to try to apply it to whether the Shapiro quote should be in the article. The close also ignored the BLP issues of Shapiro's quote and the issues of weight.Scoobydunk (talk) 16:16, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• The close was proper and the RFC was presumably constructed the way it was to address the specific policy claims being cited to object to the segment, as the first one was. VictorD7 (talk) 01:35, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, I agree with VictorD7 that the close was proper. Atsme☯ 00:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

A Radical Suggestion

There have been too many RFCs and WP:AN threads about this article. Usually when there are too many WP:ANI threads about a topic, they indicate that there is battleground editing, and that it will eventually have to go to ArbCom. However, I don't see battleground editing, just a lot of questions where everyone is acting in good faith but getting nowhere. I would suggest that formal mediation at WP:RFM is the next step for this article. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:01, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

It's important to bear in mind how unimportant this article is. It made it into the news, it's something that people are worked up about now, but give it a year and things will look very different. I still remember how the Expelled article, at its height, was 20% longer than it currently is and had spawned 2 or 3 daughter articles. Now, few people would care if it was trimmed back to half its length, and no one has written anything new on the topic in more than half a decade. Guettarda (talk) 16:18, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Mediation can not overturn an RfC close as far as I can tell, and a significant number of "declines" at the RfM are already noted. Sorry. Collect (talk) 13:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• I would take the view that a mediator can overturn the close of a content RfC such as this one, if that's warranted. Formal mediation is a higher stage in the content dispute resolution process than an informal RfC. However, I don't think a mediator could overturn something like an RfC/U.—S Marshall T/C 16:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• Restored from Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive268 for further discussion and assessment by an uninvolved editor. It would be unfair to S Marshall (talk · contribs) and the discussion's participants if this closure review is allowed to be archived without resolution. Cunard (talk) 00:38, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - if an RfC can be overturned that easily, why waste time doing it? Just skip the process all together and take it to formal mediation. Perhaps we need to exert equally as much energy into changing the wording of some core contents policies to avoid the confusion. ARBCOM and AE are beginning to look like a traffic jam. Atsme☯ 00:16, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
• {{Do not archive until}} added. Please remove the {{Do not archive until}} tag after the review is closed. Cunard (talk) 00:38, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Review Closure of debate : Proposed Hypothesis/Theory as fact

The consensus here means that the FTN thread can now be reopened and/or have the close struck out, but I would suggest that as the discussion is now ongoing at a new location it would probably be best to continue discussion there. Sunrise (talk) 20:28, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Linking to the discussion per a request at my user talk: diff of strikethrough and permalink. Sunrise (talk) 04:41, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

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

This debate Proposed Hypothesis/Theory as fact was closed last night at 8:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC) less than 24 hours after it was opened on 10:43, 26 January 2015. Arguments were presented on both sides.

I'd like to challenge closure on the basis that the debate wasn't given enough time to reach a consensus, or for editors to respond to criticisms of their comments. Also it didn't leave much time for other uninvolved editors to learn about the debate.

The closure was not decided on a policy basis, or on a careful, considered review of citations.

Robert Walker (talk) 13:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• Overturn - Apparently the most of the same editors who recently participated on the the supposed article talk page were now arguing on the noticeboard. Such discussions should be avoided but quick closure without that included lack of policy based rationale cannot be justified. Closing admin could've commented in place of closing after adding his point of view. VandVictory (talk) 13:57, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• Overturn A complex discussion like this needs more than 24 hours to reach a valid consensus. --John (talk) 14:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• Why wasn't I, the closing admin, notified of this? Anyway, discussions get closed whenever the situation has become clear and it appears unlikely that it will shift further. This was the case here. Buried in the vast volume of talk from a few highly entrenched editors, there was a clear situation that one group of editors had reliable literature to cite in favour of their view, and one or two other editors simply didn't want to hear about it. It was a WP:GREENCHEESE type of situation, it was getting highly repetitive, and it was producing more heat than light by the time I closed itc. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• Could be closed with a different summary, you could tell that the users must try somewhere else, like Rfc, DRN, in place of copy-pasting same discussion. VandVictory (talk) 14:26, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Fut.Perf. My apologies. Though I'm a long term wikipedian I am not well up on protocol and didn't realize that I needed to do this. As soon as you said it I realized my omission. Robert Walker (talk) 14:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Also - both sides had citations in support of their claims which at least fulfilled the usual criteria for citation sources for wikipedia. This is an example of a paper in the American Journal of Human Genetics by one of the authors BladesMulti cites - Genetic Evidence for Recent Population Mixture in India. Robert Walker (talk) 15:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't see where this paper was brought up during the noticeboard thread, but then, I also don't see how it would serve to cast doubt on the finding in question, of general academic acceptance of Indo-Aryan migration. Judging from its summary, the results of that paper appear to be fully compatible with it. Where exactly was this paper discussed? Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

The relevance is that he gave an earlier citation by the same author. I thought better to link to his latest results here, The relevant part of the paper is the Discussion section starting: "It is also important to emphasize what our study has not shown" but this is not the place to discuss the content dispute itself, I just mentioned it to show that there are citations on both sides of the dispute. Robert Walker (talk) 16:39, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. This is not an overturn vote, because in my opinion the basic decision was probably correct. However, the close seems to be mainly based on a judgement that one side consists of "knowledgeable editors who are familiar with the literature". I don't think this is an appropriate way to close because, for this type of discussion, the closer's assessment should be based on the evidence put forward, not on which side gives the best impression of knowing what it is talking about. If the close is overturned, it would be good for editors to concentrate more on sources. Formerip (talk) 17:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
• Comment Those sources are clear: the IAMt is mainstream theory, whereas the "Out of India" is not even rejected in mainstream academics, but simply ignored. The issue is highly contentious, since the IAMt is opposed by Hindu nationalists. Robert came here by following me, and started to participate, acknowledging that he doesn't know anything about the topic. Which is clear from the sources he's referring to. No hint of any knowledge of the relevant sources: Mallory, Witzel, Anthony. If the closure is to overturned, focus will be on those sources. Two sources:

• Mallory & Adams (2006), The Oxford Introduction to Proto-Indo-European and the Proto-Indo-European World:

"Currently, there are two types of models that enjoy significant international currency (Map 26.1). (p.460)

"There is the Neolithic model that involves a wave of advance from Anatolia c. 7000 bc and, at least for south-eastern and central Europe, argues primarily for the importation of a new language by an ever growing population of farmers. (p.460)

"Alternatively, there is the steppe or kurgan model which sees the Proto-IndoEuropeans emerging out of local communities in the forest-steppe of the Ukraine and south Russia. Expansion westwards is initiated c. 4000 bc by the spread from the forest-steppe of mobile communities who employed the horse and, within the same millennium, wheeled vehicles." (p.461)

• Witzel, Michael (2001), "Autochthonous Aryans? The Evidence from Old Indian and Iranian Texts" (PDF), Electronic Journal of Vedic Studies 7-3 (EJVS) 2001(1-115):

"The 'revisionist project' certainly is not guided by the principles of critical theory but takes, time and again, recourse to pre-enlightenment beliefs in the authority of traditional religious texts such as the Purånas. In the end, it belongs, as has been pointed out earlier, to a different 'discourse' than that of historical and critical scholarship. In other words, it continues the writing of religious literature, under a contemporary, outwardly 'scientific' guise. Though the ones pursuing this project use dialectic methods quite effectively, they frequently also turn traditional Indian discussion methods and scholastic tricks to their advantage The revisionist and autochthonous project, then, should not be regarded as scholarly in the usual post-enlightenment sense of the word, but as an apologetic, ultimately religious undertaking aiming at proving the 'truth' of traditional texts and beliefs. Worse, it is, in many cases, not even scholastic scholarship at all but a political undertaking aiming at 'rewriting' history out of national pride or for the purpose of 'nation building'."

Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. Future Perfect's closure note may not have stated it overtly, but the "knowledgeable editors" (of which I was one) were using and citing the most recent and most reliable sources for the topic at hand. The religio-nationalistic argument that was being made was based on a profound repetition of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, using the WP:GREENCHEESE tactic. There was no discussion occurring since the opposing editor's sole argument consisted of "this hypothesis is completely false", despite the fact that it is accepted by virtually every scholar in the field. His sole position was to reject 200 years of scholarship in favor of his thinly-veiled religious viewpoint. Since there was no discussion, there was no need to proceed with the pointless exercise of burning through bandwidth. --Taivo (talk) 20:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

As I indicated, my objection was only to the rationale of the close. Regardless of whether the effect was correct, this matters because, in other circumstances, we may get editors eloquently spouting nonsense and favoured by a closer solely on basis of how their jibe-cut looks. I don't think we should be satisfied with closes that leave open the possibility of having reached the right decision only by happy accident. And there certainly were arguments and sources put forward by the other side. They may have been junk, but that's something that absolutely must be addressed in the close. Formerip (talk) 20:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support boxing of thread - As noted below, the closure was not a formal closure, since there is no procedure for the formal closure of WP:FTN threads, but the boxing of a disruptive thread. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
• Overturn - Though contentious subjects requires wider discussion, I further agree with FormerIP that it could be closed without any results. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 00:26, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• Overturn The neutrality of the article Vedic_Period was being disputed Talk:Vedic_period#Issues_of_Dispute when the debate Proposed Hypothesis/Theory as fact was opened by closing the debate too soon before other editors could participate including me since I had disputed the neutrality. Many of the points raised in Talk:Vedic_period#Issues_of_Dispute were not even raised or debated. A total of 7 editors in 24hrs debate decided that scholars who do not agree with the Kurgan_Hypothesis are 'fringe'. This is not a fair process of debate. Using the hastily arrived so called 'result of this debate' User:Joshua_Jonathan deleted the WP:NPOV banner and also reverted some of his own previous edits which he had made to bring about some amount of balance in the article as a result of the debate we were having on Talk:Vedic_period#Issues_of_Dispute. Thus closing the debate should either clearly say that there were no result so that we can restore the deleted edits in Vedic_Period and restart the WP:NPOV debate there, else we should reopen the Proposed Hypothesis/Theory as fact debate.Indoscope (talk) 09:15, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
• Overturn. It is grossly unfair to have a discussion for less than 24h and generate a "verdict", either let it run for others to participate or purge it entirely. I am an active editor, with good reputation and I must say I didn't even know of the discussion's existence and it got closed right away -- with a "clear verdict". Now, that is sheer mockery of a discussion and is against the the idea of collaboration! --AmritasyaPutra 09:45, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - The original thread that was boxed was not a Request for Comments or any other sort of thread for which formal closure is used. Talk page threads that have no formal status are often boxed when they become excessive. I agree with other editors who suggest re-opening the discussion, not because the closer erred, but to permit further discussion, but that the topic be re-opened as a Request for Comments. I note that, in that case, it will run for 30 days, not for a week. If the topic is re-opened, an admin will need to watch it so that any irrelevant comments or personal attacks can be hatted. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:21, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Hatting maybe better. I also think that the better place for an RFC would be the article's talk page. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:38, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• Overturn Although I seriously expect a fuller discussion would reach the same conclusion, a minimum of a week is what is generally required. Collect (talk) 18:29, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments

In looking at the thread whose closure is being reviewed, I see that the thread had been open for only 24 hours, and that it appears to consist of one author supporting the fringe "out-of-India" on Indo-European languages theory and multiple editors, citing established scholarship, dismissing the "out-of-India" theory. However, the discussion was lengthy and heated. The discussion was then closed by administrator FPaS. The thread was not an RFC, and was not in any other way a thread having any sort of formal status, and so it is not clear to me whether closure review applies. There did appear to be a snow consensus against out-of-India, but the discussion was not one for which consensus needs to be identified. If anyone thinks that consensus does need to be determined as to "out-of-India" as opposed to the Indo-Aryan migration hypothesis (IAMT), then the mechanism to do this would be a Request for Comments, for which formal closure is appropriate. I think that FPaS was justified in boxing the thread, not so much because consensus had been determined, as because the thread was becoming disruptive in itself. For that reason I support the closure, and am not sure what the requester wants to have overturned. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I will note that the originator of this "closure review" thread did not participate in the original thread. Why does he want the closure reviewed? What does he think needs to be discussed at more length? The thread was noisy and unproductive. If the requester wants a longer discussion of IAMT vs. "out-of-India", RFC is available. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• I'd suggest reopening the debate. There's nothing wrong with Future Perfect's close in itself, but the close hasn't stopped the argument. It's just moved the argument here. Send it back to the appropriate place, let them wrangle for a week and then re-close it. Sure, the close would very likely be exactly the same, but if we go through fair process, users will no longer be able to argue that the close was arbitrary or premature.—S Marshall T/C 11:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I think I agree. But then a RfC, at the FTN, with notifications at the relevant noticeboards (India, linguistics, history, etc.). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:55, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, "fair process" is mandatory not optional. A "clear conclusion" and closure in less than 24h is undeniably premature. --AmritasyaPutra 15:40, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

So, that would be at Talk:Indigenous Aryans, wouldn't it? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:11, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

RfC opened

I've opened an RfC at Talk:Indigenous Aryans#RfC: the "Indigenous Aryans" theory is fringe-theory. Let's keep it civilised. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:24, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Not a good idea because that wasn't even a question in the FTN section which I had started. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:48, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Bladesmulti the original question raised by him was "Should we regard Indo-Aryan Migration theory (IAMt) as a historical fact? In terms of making references to it, or using the hypothesis as the actuality for generalizing the historical events.". This has been turned in this RFC to is "Indigenous Aryans" theory is fringe-theory. Which was not the original question at all.Indoscope (talk) 14:50, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The fact that Bladesmulti asked a question at the Fringe Theorioes board has no bearing on whether or not a different editor can propose an RFC on a different (albeit related) question. Why do you think it should? Paul B (talk) 14:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Seems like a different, though related, question to me - original question was about mass migration and had the Indo-Aryan migration theory article as its prime focus. Since Indo-Aryan is a language group if I understand right - and since languages can spread without mass movement of people (examples include trade, temporary conquest by a numerically small group with superior technology, missionaries, many other reasons). I am saying that not to re=open the debate here - but to say how the two hypotheses are clearly independent. Logically they could be both true indeed (you can have simultaneous mass migrations in two directions at once, or at different times), or both false, or one or the other true. Robert Walker (talk) 19:09, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Resurrection of long-dormant accounts

We have recently seen a significant number of dormant but autoconfirmed accounts suddenly appearing to make edits in various controversial topic areas, and in particular in topic areas the accounts had not edited in their earlier incarnations. This has been happening frequently enough in recent months that it is probably time to start treating these as possibly compromised accounts. Does anyone have other thoughts about this? Risker (talk) 15:06, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Compromised indicates that the initial user is not the current user. I think that's a jump. With that being said, it would appear that an outside influence is encouraging editors who left WP for one reason or another to return. Personally I don't think we should treat them any differently unless they actually cause a disruption. They might not be considered "new," but WP:BITE should probably still apply. If there is reason to suspect malfeasance on a case-by-case basis, that should be acted on then. Ries42 (talk) 15:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

(e/c) I'm not sure these are compromised accounts; I suspect many are just sleeper accounts, saved for a rainy day. I've blocked one such account recently, but am considering modifying it to a permanent topic ban. The problem is, if 19 out of 20 of these are weasels gaming the system (compromised or sleeper), what do we want to do with the 20th out of 20, who left for a long while but came back and picked the wrong subject to get involved in? A topic ban seems a slightly more reasonable injustice to do to that 20th person, even if 19 should be blocked. If they really are being used in an organized way to dive into a contentious area, the people behind them aren't as likely to be willing to edit other things instead, so a very quick topic ban might be as useful as a block. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:20, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

A number of these accounts are following a pattern that makes it extremely difficult to believe they've come from anywhere but where editors are being urged to follow that particular pattern for disruptive purposes (for instance, two sections up we have sleeper accounts that resurrected suddenly to edit gamergate, and then just as suddenly jumped to obscure anime episode lists connected to gamergate only through Ryulong, coincidentally at the same time as a subreddit began urging its users to go to articles Ryulong had edited and make just enough edits to antagonize). I don't see these accounts as compromised so much as acting on an outside impetus for reasons other than building the encyclopedia, but both compromised accounts and accounts not here to build the encylopedia are handled by doing the same thing: blocking the account until a reasonable and plausible unblock request is submitted. We should be open, however, to unblock requests from that one or handful of people who really did hit the bad-luck lottery and got taken to articles following an off-wiki pattern by hitting "random article". In those cases, I agree with Floquenbeam's suggestion: they're welcome to return to editing if they're willing to operate under a topic ban from ; the specifics of each topic ban could be handled by the unblocking administrator as an unblock condition. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:05, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

A lot of people with have web activity have registered accounts over the years then left. Thanks to various plugins they can probably still enter their passwords as thus bring the account back to life.©Geni (talk) 16:27, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Why would any of this even be relevant? Who cares if they were dormant, or which topic they go to upon return? Why don't we just judge editors by the quality of their edits? (Also: "Gamergate" didn't exist in years past, so it's pretty meaningless to say they didn't edit about Gamergate before they disappeared in 2011, or whatever...) Everyking (talk) 16:37, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I take no position on GamerGate-related silliness (other than a world-weary sigh) but I'd like to refer to my own "dormant" account history. Very few edits in the first 3-4 years of using my account, then I got properly into editing Misplaced Pages, helped with AutoWikiBot jobs and eventually became an admin. Ah, but I'm not like the bad people whose dormant accounts have been reactivated to cause trouble? Maybe not. But the way that is judged is by reference to their current behaviour, not by how long their account has been dormant. Not just on Misplaced Pages, but there are a lot of people who register for accounts which they leave dormant for a long time and then dive in only when they feel they have something to add. Being a lurker is something we should allow: there's a camera forum I lurk in because I learn interesting things about my particular brand of camera by reading the posts there, but I don't feel comfortable posting. Getting comfortable in a community can take a long time, or it can take meeting other people who are involved in the community who help induct you into the community's practices and ideas. I'd rather we not harm gentle, well-meaning lurkers in an attempt to chase out alleged wrongdoers. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• Of course there is something going on, whether they are compromised or not. Other than running a SPI with cause, we are left with what ArbCom gave us. This mess isn't going to go away, and will now change Misplaced Pages. Or whatever is left of it. Dave Dial (talk) 17:15, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

According to WP:SPA, even without the recent ArbCom addition, the standard is "Existing editors must assume good faith concerning the user account, act fairly, civilly, not bite newcomers, and remember everyone was new at some time." For some of the recent bans handed out for minor infractions, on the assertion that these were conducted only to "antagonize" a recently-banned editor, these have failed good faith, fairness and civility altogether. While we are mainly speaking of dormant accounts reactivating, the only real concern being levied is whether or not these (including mine) are here solely to conduct advocacy, which is a case-by-case matter and not the blanket-condemnation some appear willing to leap to. The reality is, there had to be an ArbCom because virtually everyone involved was advocating for one side or another, and both sides were organizing both on and off wiki to do so. For some editors, it seems this decision and its basis may not yet have sunk in. Calbeck (talk) 18:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

If editors start showing up to tendentiously edit articles in which a editor has been recently forcibly topic banned (or worse) it is reasonable to assume that they came with the purpose of antagonizing the restricted editor. It becomes a domino effect of how far do we extend the heightened scrutiny of edits in related topics from an initial topic of disruption. In this case (with the evidence presented) I would give one formal warning to any editor who has recently come back from an extended period of idleness only to concentrate on edits of questionable value to topics that were of interest to the editor in question. It seems a reasonable assumption that these editors are moving to pages that the editor had extensive interest in a form of retribution for the editor's own actions. Hasteur (talk) 19:01, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Given the hostility and off-site coordination in this area, this point is especially true. Ravensfire (talk) 19:06, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Given the hostility and on-site coordination in this area, its a bit pot calling the kettle black at this point. Especially given the outcome of the case. I'm with Everyking, follow policy, judge the editor by the quality of the edits *NOT* by crystal-balling their possible motives. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:16, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

There's a cottage industry in setting up and selling accounts on sites such as Misplaced Pages. They may be compromised, they may have been sold, but frankly to assume good faith any editor arriving out of long hibernation to pile in at a controversial article would go beyond the optimism of Mary Poppins. Of course they are not here to help, banninate them promptly and be done with it. We used to be good at fighting off the /b/tards, we need to re-learn our old robust behaviours. Guy (Help!) 21:38, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Another area where mystery accounts are appearing is Landmark Worldwide, which is now under Discretionary Sanctions. A number of accounts have come from nowhere, and yet have detailed knowledge of a subject and sources that spans 30 pages of archives. One recent editor managed to expand the article by 50% and use a dozen sources without ever commenting on the talk page and having never worked on the article before. I guess, I'll just AGF and assume some editors are just that good. Otherwise, I'd have to think some of them might be any of the many editors blocked or banned or topic-banned over the years at that article - in which case it sure would be nice to see Guy fighting the /b/tards :) --Tgeairn (talk) 21:46, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to report them, and let's have a look. Guy (Help!) 22:01, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to interject (I'm just following a link from a page I was mentioned on) but i feel that Tgeairn is being less than honest in his motivation and comments here. As the editor that allegedly expanded the article by 50% (it was 25%) which was a reduction in size by 40% of a section that was being deleted/reverted in and out of the article. It was my third edit on the article. I have replied elsewhere in more depth on Drmies

There is real life outside Misplaced Pages, I was active for a 5/6 month period 2009/10 and occasionally thereafter until I lost my password in a hard disk partition crash (windows & programs). I have never had any other user account other than my old and new replacement account and have linked them on the user page so anyone can see. As a graduate of the 70's and a professional I have to admit to having gone from a right wing viewpoint to left. I trust that when people return to WP that editors and admins should AGF. ThanksCathar66 (talk) 20:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Ban them even if the edits are good? Why? We are here to build an encyclopedia, not to play whack-a-mole or pretend detective. (Also, let me observe that our resident detectives suck very badly at "detecting", but they are excellent at building ill-will and driving good people away.) Another point: controversial things are popular editing topics in general, and returning from hibernation to edit one of them is meaningless as evidence. Everyking (talk) 04:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree, I have no idea abut the Gamergate activity, but in the EE editing areas (‎in particular, Russian-Ukrainian conflict) there are too many suddenly resurrected dormant accounts, editing disruptively and often supporting each other. There should be some way showing them the exit at the early stage, before they manage to disrupt the situation.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:05, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

First of all, let's stop pretending it is a wiki-tragedy that Ryulong was site banned; their chronic failure to contribute in a manner consistent with our WP:CIVILITY pillar was such that I suggested to another editor they start a RFC/U almost a year ago, long before gamergate .

Pokes at articles previously edited by Ryulong are being suggested off-wiki. That should not cause us to abandon our principles, including:

• Main_Page: the 💕 that anyone can edit.
• Wikimedia:Privacy_policy: we believe that you shouldn’t have to provide personal information to participate in the free knowledge movement
• Wikimedia:Terms_of_Use: You adhere to the below Terms of Use and to the applicable community policies when you visit our sites or participate in our communities.
• Edit buffer banner: Work submitted to Misplaced Pages can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone—
• WP:PERSONAL: Comment on the content, not the contributor.

The best solution, is to simply monitor the new editors for disruptive behavior. FlossumPossum exhibited uncollegial behavior very early in their edit history , so I don't have a problem with the block per se; but it would be better if, except in the many cases of obvious vandalism / trolling account, blocking admins cite specific reasons for blocks rather than a vague WP:NOTHERE. DarknessSavior, on the other hand made no recent edits justifying a block. They briefly and calmly participated in a prior AN request for a Ryulong topic ban, a discussion that well illustrates Ryulong's unsuitability for Misplaced Pages as validated by arbcom's subsequent site ban. DarknessSavior edit history suggests they simply took the rather reasonable approach of waiting until Ryulong inevitable separation from the project before attempting to improve Kamen Rider OOO (character) -- an article which hardly approaches the BLP importance of actual Gamergate controversy articles.

The well meaning but flawed suggestion we simply block all the SPAs and make them prove themselves via unblock request only makes sense from the Wiki-insider point of view. A reasonably self-confident adult who inadvertently stumbles onto a unmarked "forbidden" article is not going to jump through hoops, they'll simply say: Huh, I guess these Misplaced Pages folks are a bunch of assholes and go find something else to do. Remember, the con is to try to get folks to work for free writing the encyclopedia. Continuing to put up every narrowing wickets -- too clueless and we WP:CIR block you, and too capable, like maybe someone who RTFM, and we block per WP:DUCK -- is not healthy for the encyclopedia.

If this all too much, if we simply must "protect" Ryulong's legacy, then simply pick some number -- a month?, identify the sacred Ryulong articles, and full protect them. It's an abuse of wiki policy, of course, but at least it's least it's less damaging than blocking any new editor who shows up. NE Ent 16:45, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, what he said. GamerGate is a big ball of mess, but it doesn't justify throwing away our policies and procedures. Editors should be sanctioned for disruptive editing, to prevent further damage to the encyclopaedia. Not for making constructive edits to articles that happen to be controversial for reasons that will be completely unclear to someone who doesn't follow the WP arcana. GoldenRing (talk) 03:19, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Since I was mentioned, I'd just like to point out that the loser being referred to was just a joke being poked at myself. That's my IP, I was not referring to anyone else as a loser. Self deprecating humor is just something I enjoy, and that was not an insult to any other user, so I was not uncivil to any user but myself. I am also unblocked now and editing what I have interest in peacefully(though I was in the hospital the other day and somewhat sick currently so not on my computer as much) FlossumPossum (talk) 22:56, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Banning policy

About a month ago, I made a post on the policy village pump basically asking Wikipedians on their opinions of the banning policy, whether ban evasion can ever be excused, etc. I did not receive as broad of a response as I had hoped for, and seeing as we're in the midst of discussing reforms to the BASC and UTRS, I figured there shouldn't be much of a problem in reposting this to a wider audience.

I'll basically repeat what I said at the time, but in simplistic terms. Let's say someone was banned for particularly egregious offences, such as death threats or doxxing another editor. They subsequently make a new account and begin editing constructively for the next ten years, amassing several thousand edits throughout that time. Their past identity is later exposed to the community. As it turns out, they were around 12-13 at the time of their initial ban and have expressed genuine remorse for what they've done. Would it be appropriate to immediately block their account indefinitely without any further discussion, and should they be required to appeal their ban through the proper channels just like everyone else? Is their age a mitigating factor, even considering the behaviour for which they were banned?

The last question is the one I'm most curious about, seeing as it calls into question the editor's maturity at the time of their actions. This all boils down to one central issue — does age matter in dealing with cases of unbanning or ban evasion? I'm of the opinion that it ought to be taken into account when deciding whether or not to uphold a ban from so long ago, but I may be in the minority there. Thoughts? Kurtis 09:56, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

• Maybe not age in and of itself, but time passed? Sure. Someone banned years ago and who managed to (unbeknownst to others) come back and prove he's an asset to the project shouldn't be automatically shown the door when his past is "uncovered". At the very least, it warrants a new discussion to see whether editors agree to overturn the ban or are adamant about enforcing it. But strictly speaking, age is less relevant (and more personal) that personal growth over time. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:22, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

• I agree that in a case such as described here, discussion is warranted instead of instantly perma-blocking. Blocks and bans are meant to protect WP from harm. If a user has secretly been evading a sanction literally for years and has not caused any more disruption of the sort that got them sanctioned, that's a win. It's a rare scenario indeed but it can happen. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Concur with above, but. I've observed over the years that Misplaced Pages doesn't do abstract well -- we have a WP:IAR pillar that strongly implies policy isn't absolute, anyway. So I don't see any benefit to discussing the hypothetical, but if / when an actual case occurs there's just going to end up be a very specific discussion about that particular editor. NE Ent 18:52, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

It depends. Some folks have such a strong agenda that they are prepared to play a long game, others are banned for going nuclear over a single incident. There is a difference. Consider a spammer who has learned how to do referenciness so is now a less controversial spammer, or a proponent of a crank theory who is prepared to spend a long time waiting to quietly weasel his crank theory in. Guy (Help!) 00:05, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a specific case in mind? As I said in my response to the original discussion,

Such cases seem to be sufficiently rare that they can be handled as they are now: on a case-by-case basis. Circumstances vary so much from one banned individual to the next...that trying to create a firm rule now will either result in an unsatisfactory outcome when we try to apply it, or require us to create a complex and over-engineered policy to try to capture every single possible hypothetical. And even an over-engineered and hyper-detailed policy might still break down when today's hypothetical discussion crashes into real circumstances (and an evolved community) some years in the future.

Further to that, if we identify one specific mitigating factor – say, age – in policy will we then be inclined to over-rely on that, and to disregard other mitigating (or aggravating) factors? If we try to enumerate a complete list of mitigating factors, are we creating a checklist or too-rigid framework that will lead us to dismiss valid (but unanticipated) classes of appeal? (Or worse, creating a framework to guide future gaming of the system?)

We already seem capable of having discussions (citing WP:IAR or what-have-you if need be) when a case of ban evasion is discovered that isn't cut and dried, and where returning the individual to good standing on the project would be in line with the community's values. Trying to codify specific exceptions and loopholes seems to be inviting problems in an area where we don't actually seem to have a problem now. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:52, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

For example, imagine that DGG, registered in 2006, is a reincarnation of Isis, permabanned in 2003 for making legal threats. We aren't going to go off and get rid of the guy because he's a banned user! It's never right to apply the policy without thinking of its ramifications: in most cases, the encyclopedia benefits when we get rid of the guy that's already banned, but there can be exceptions. Nyttend (talk) 23:50, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

The reason I'm asking is to spur discussion. I was thinking about proposing an overhaul of the entire banning process, but my ideas are probably too convoluted to gather any real support. Kurtis 19:59, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• So if i can paraphrase your question: "Should there be a statute of limitations?" I believe the answer is yes. Of course, the hypothetical you proposed has some issues regarding the current status of a block. But then again WP:INDEF says "Indefinite does not mean Infinite." In fact to further quote that section: "As with all blocks, it is not a punishment. It is designed to prevent further disruption, and the desired outcome is a commitment to observe Misplaced Pages's policies and to stop problematic conduct in future." Which means, if the user has learned from his block, has been contributing, and has not been disruptive then, by the spirit of the policy, the block has been carried out successfully. Remember it's not Punitive. However, in the case of death threats and doxing, there may be more to the issue than just WP policies. In any case, it appears the current policy already covers issues like the one you brought up. Unfortunately, like most policies, this one may be up to the personal interpretation of an admin. But that's why we have AN.

I actually do have a recent example of something similar to this, and I'm a little torn about it. Here's the block log . The user was banned twice 8 years ago as a vandalism only account. They came back and made one edit. And they were blocked. Now there's a few things to note that makes it a hard call. 1st: The article did become a source of contention and controversy, but this edit and ban were before that started. 2nd: Their edit was made at 1:33, it was reverted at 1:39, they were banned at 1:44 but there was no discussion started about the edited content until 3:54. 3rd: The edit ended up being in line with the consensus, so there was actually no misconduct. 4th: The editor was given no notice or reason. They were not contacted, they were not allowed to dispute, there's not even a note on the block log.

In this case, the editor does not have a good history. But the admin's actions don't seem to be exactly justifiable either. What do you guys think about this one?TyTyMang (talk) 06:33, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Note that ban ≠ block. Also, the edit was Ryulong-related, which is as you can imagine a very touchy subject with the ArbCom decision and all. ansh666 06:56, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Do edits being "Ryulong-related" give cause to make such actions? Do all edits by Ryulong have special rules/sanctions. You know though, it really does go to show you. Even after him being blocked the amount of influence (as noted by you and others) he has on WP is amazing. TyTyMang (talk) 09:08, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

What a surprise—another SPA attacking Ryulong. Johnuniq (talk) 09:22, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

It seems pretty ironic to me that you assume I'm attacking Ryulong by merely asking questions or by making the statement that others have alluded ,including you, to his continued influence post-ban. I had made no comment regarding him in any way. He was brought up to me. And frankly I don't care about him. Though I very much don't appreciate being accused of attacking someone.TyTyMang (talk) 00:03, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

You all allowed Ryulong to WP:OWN these articles for years, driving away countless new editors. Now that his reign is ended you're once again shutting the door to these editors, not just reverting as he did but abusing your admin powers to ban them. It's disgraceful. The reason for policies like WP:BITE and WP:AGF is that new editors are essential to the encyclopedia's survival. It seems you've lost sight of that. Lincoln T. Logs (talk) 15:40, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• I am sure that the two (or it might be as many as three) examples that exist, can be handled on a case by case basis. Absent credible evidence of a problem demanding solution, I see no point. Guy (Help!) 00:11, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Aside: I blocked TyTyMang (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a drama-only account. We have enough shit-stirrers who have substantive contributions to the encylopaedia, we have absolutely no need of new ones who don't. Guy (Help!) 00:20, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Nobody ought to be under a ban that lasts years and years anyway. This shouldn't even be worth thinking about. Holding someone accountable for some purported wiki-crime that happened years ago, when here and now they are doing good work, would be simply insane. The fact that such situations are so common just shows how badly the spirit of Misplaced Pages has been distorted. The real troublemakers on this project are the admins who pretend they are cops and detectives and prison guards, and the arbitrators who back them up—we should be holding them accountable for the things they are doing right now, today. Everyking (talk) 01:37, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• The reality is that if someone really does turn over a new leaf, stays away from past problems, and manages to stay out of trouble for a reasonable period of time, no one is ever going to make the connection to the previous block or ban. Once the technical evidence expires, and we should be way past that time in the type of situation the question asks about, the only way the new and old accounts will be linked is if the new account falls back into the old patterns, which probably means they failed at turning over the new leaf, or the new account reveals it. In the case of revealing their own past, and assuming we are talking about multiple years of uncontroversial editing under the new account, I see no point in punishing the person for their honesty. Scrutinize the new account, see if there is a reason a block is still necessary, but if you can't come up with one, it means the block/ban has served its purpose and is no longer needed. Monty₈₄₅ 02:35, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• I was thinking about proposing a de facto expiration for all community bans after a specific period of time, particularly in this case of editors who are known to be minors at the time of their initial ban. I doubt it would gain community traction because such a process would open up a whole new can of worms and create more bureaucracy than most would be able to handle, but I agree with Everyking's point above; no one should be banned for life. Kurtis 21:56, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
• I think bans of such nature should expire one year after the ban was initiated, especially if these people try to come back and show they learned why they were banned to begin with. If they show they're making positive contributions there is no reason to further push these editors away. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 05:35, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Appeal of topic ban

A little more than six months ago I was topic banned (link). I hereby appeal for lifting this ban.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:48, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

How will it benefit the interests of Misplaced Pages to do so? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

It is always beneficial for wikipedia to have more editors constructively editing all articles on wikipedia.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:38, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Do you feel that your past editing in the area concerned has been constructive? I ask this because that appears not to have been the consensus when the ban was enacted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:11, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I know nothing whatsoever about Antidiskriminator or previous incidents, but "I just want to edit" is not a productive argument for lifting a topic ban. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:13, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply which really makes sense. Is there any guideline which presents some kind of list of arguments to be used in discussions about ban appeals? If not, what do you think could be such argument? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:24, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any guide specifically related to appealing topic bans, but the advice given at Misplaced Pages:Guide to appealing blocks#Composing your request to be unblocked is also relevant to topic ban appeals. Generally speaking, an appeal wont be successful unless you:

• show you understand why the topic ban was imposed
• point to examples of where you have been constructively engaging in collaborative editing in one or more other topic areas
• have abided by the topic ban for at least the last 6 months without incident.
• state why you want to return to the topic area - is a particular article/problem you want to fix, for example?
• promise that problems will not reoccur

Deliberate boundary testing, wikilawyering, poor conduct in other areas, and a general lack of editing will typically be looked at unfavourably. I have not looked at any of the details of your ban or your contributions since, so I don't have an opinion on the merits of this specific appeal and I'm not implying that you have or have not done anything here. Thryduulf (talk) 19:43, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Here it is:

• The ban was imposed because the community reached consensus to ban me
• For example The Fault in Our Stars (film) and bringing it to GA level together with its nominator (link to my GA review). Since my topic ban was imposed I created 40 articles and developed 27 of them to start class and 4 to C class, alone or with other editors. I had 12 of them approved as DYK articles and still have 2 nominations. One nomination (Paškal Jukić) was done jointly with another editor (link) (link and link). I also created one template (link) and most of its content.
• I have abided by the topic ban for at least the last 6 months without incident (with one minor unintentional breach when I added one comma to text about Albanian partisans near Tirana in article about Kingdom of Albania - link)
• I want to return to the topic area because the subject of my particular interest (Ottoman Empire) is frequently related to post-1900 Serbs and Serbia and because sometimes I simply am able to constructively contribute to it, but can not due to restriction.
• I promise to take very good care not to violate wikipedia policies while editing articles related to the topic area from which I was banned as well as other topic areas.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:38, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• I think that first bullet point may be a killer to this request, so I suggest you expand on it. Can you explain what actions you took that caused the community to give you a topic ban? In particular, can you explain what you did that was problematic? You don't need to apologize for past behavior. Rather, you need to show you really understand what the problem was and have a solid plan for avoiding similar problems in the future. As written, I don't get that sense at all. Hobit (talk) 21:17, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• The discussion that resulted in the topic ban is here, and the first appeal of it, five days later, is here. It's been about 5 1/2 months since that appeal, and as far as I can tell there hasn't been another appeal since. A short discussion regarding the boundaries of the ban is here. Several of the people in that discussion were of the opinion that Antidiskriminator's October 21, 2014 edit to Albanian Kingdom (1943–44) violated the topic ban, but there was no consensus declared. BMK (talk) 22:55, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• Beyond My Ken, Since that appeal has been 191 days, or 6 months and one week, if I am not wrong.
• Hobit, Thank you for this question. It is indeed good to clarify if I have a solid plan for avoiding problems in this topic area in the future. To put it briefly: The community reached consensus to ban me because of my talkpage behavior. I had numerous content and conduct related disputes with a group of editors. My communication with them was seen as disruptive (unproductive, unconstructive, annoyingly bizarre, unhelpful, mind-numbing, obstructing, stonewalling, ....). Yes, I do have a plan to avoid similar problems in this topic areas. I plan to strictly follow wikipedia policies and avoid both content and conduct disputes with other editors. If some dispute happens anyway, I will strictly follow WP:DR and limit my talkpage comments to 1) opinion and 2) wikipedia policy or reliable source in which they are grounded as much as possible. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:45, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Personally, I'd be hard pressed to call the ban discussion a consensus in any way, shape or form, despite Drmies concluding that sufficient evidence of disruption had been presented to warrant a TBAN. The number of editors that !voted in that ban discussion was distinctly suboptimal. Six editors !voted all but two having had some sort of contact/dispute with Antidiskrimnator. I definitely couldn't say there was a sufficiently uninvolved consensus for a TBAN. Be that as it may, perhaps a probationary period of say 3 months during which the TBAN is lifted but any transgressions would result in a TBAN under WP:AC/DS? Blackmane (talk) 23:50, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

This seems a good idea to me. The discussion above of what brought about the TBAN in the first place doesn't exactly reek of contrition, but avoiding the topic for six months may be grounds to AGF and lift the topic ban, on the understanding that it comes straight back if the misbehaviour continues. How do we administer this, so that admins are aware of the probation condition? GoldenRing (talk) 23:56, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I suggest allowing proposals of edits on talk pages, and see how it goes from there. Guy (Help!) 00:01, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• I have no problem allowing Antidiskriminator to edit in their chosen area. That votes for the ban come from editors that they have been in conflict with--eh, that's to be expected. What this particular proposal needs is a bit less sourness from Antidiskriminator and a bit of good faith from the rest, esp. the ones who wanted him banned in the first place. One of the things they should say, given that AD has been out of that area for six months, is that editing in that area has gotten easier. If they cannot show progress, or state with hand on heart that it's gotten better, then AD's topic ban wasn't much use in the first place. Drmies (talk) 01:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• Taking in consideration that most of the complaints to my talkpage behavior were related to my communication with Peacemaker67 who was blocked because of "edit warring and personal attacks" (diff) while I was banned, I am not sure if it can be stated with hand on heart that problem was (only) my behavior. Some of editors that I have been in conflict with and who !voted for my ban came again here to !vote against its lifting. To show them (or any other editor concerned about my possible "obstructing discussions") that I have a plan to avoid similar problems in the future I am willing to oblige myself to use below presented template for all comments I make at articles' or users' talkpages in relation to Post-1900 Serbia and Serbs topics, for at least 12 months after the ban was lifted.

Short description	Opinion	Basis
Antidiskriminator's opinion/reply about/to xzy ....	I think that xyz...... because........ so the text should be changed to ...............	* List of wikipedia policies (with quotes if necessary) that support the opinion. or * List of sources that support the opinion (if necessary with short quotes)
.......	........	.............

Based on the discussion at WP:AN (permanent link), Antidiskriminator obliged himself to use this template for all comments he makes at articles' or users' talkpages in relation to post-1900 Serbia and Serbs topics, for at least 12 months.--~~~~ --Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:25, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• Lift ban. And expecting someone to agree with you that you were right to ban them is pretty dumb. Nobody ever actually believes they were justly banned, so this is really just a demand for kowtowing, and it's petty. Everyking (talk) 01:46, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• I've lifted the ban. Happy editing! Lugnuts 07:54, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• How did Lugnuts do that? NE Ent 20:05, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• Pixie dust? Magic wand? Touched by an angel?

  In point of fact, Lugnuts did nothing except type the words "I've lifted the ban. Happy editing!", and the ban has not actually been lifted. There was no closing statement with an explanation of the closer's rationale, the topic ban is still logged at Editing Restrictions, and presumably admins will enforce it if there's a need to.

  In theory, there's nothing wrong with a NAC closure of a ban appeal, but in general NAC closures should be reserved for cases where the outcome is obvious and indisputable. There's also the problem that while the community imposes the ban, admins are the ones who have to enforce it, so imposing or lifting a ban without an admin close may or may not be effective.

  Were I Antidiskriminator, I would not start editing in the topic ban area without getting this question cleared up. BMK (talk) 22:43, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• And can we have some due process here, please? The discussion has barely lasted a day. Despite relatively low participation at that ANI, I don't think Antidiskriminator was banned lightly, and the decision came after years of WP:TE and WP:CIVILPOV. To quote Fut. Perf from that debate, but Antidiskriminator is certainly one of the most persistently tendentious and stubborn actors in the field – usually keeping below the threshold of admin intervention by avoiding overly perspicuous edit-warring sprees and incivility, but persistently obstructing discussions through stonewalling and refusal to get the point, coupled with tendentious and poor-quality editing in articles. and that matches my impressions in relatively limited dealing with AD perfectly. I'm not against second chances, but I have significant reservations about AD's determinations to reform and be a net positive for the project. No such user (talk) 21:12, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support removal of topic ban I have some recollection of all the issues from last time around. But I get the sense this user is going to take an honest shot at being a good editor in the area. I would prefer the topic ban removal be with the condition that it can be reimposed by an administrator at any time if his editing in this area again becomes problematic. Hobit (talk) 03:00, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
• Support removal of TBan His edits are useful. I had reviewed one of his DYK, they are interesting. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:11, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose lifting of ban. This user's presence in the topic area was a perennial source of disruption, and I see no signs whatsoever that he has changed. This ban was imposed for a good reason. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:32, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
  • What makes you believe he hasn't changed? 6 months in his other edits have been quite solid from what I can see. We generally give people WP:ROPE at that point. I'd not be shocked if the ban needs to be reimposed, but I'm not sure what else he could do to show things have changed. What is it that you'd want to see to think he has changed? Hobit (talk) 15:10, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose removal of TBan I am one of the editors that has objected strenuously to Antid's behaviour in the past, and also one of the editors that had to deal with him most, because he had a very particular interest in Chetniks, and I edit in Yugoslavia in WWII. I agree wholeheartedly with the observations of No such user. Antid was NOT banned lightly, so far as I can remember, his behaviour has been ongoing for the whole three years I've been editing WP. This is not a second chance, it is actually a third chance. See Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive126#Antidiskriminator. A lifting of the ban in terms of talk pages would open the flood gates for exactly the same behaviour on talk pages as he engaged in before. He created laundry lists of "issues" on talk pages on which he would demand clarification, fail to get the point, fail to accept consensus, and was generally highly disruptive, wasting editors' time. For a small sample, look at Talk:Pavle Đurišić/Archive 6, which demonstrates just how incredibly frustrating his behaviour really was. Someone above asked if it had been easier to edit in his absence. Where I (and others) edit, hugely. In fact, it has become a pleasure again after a couple of years of incessant frustration with tendentious obstructionism and poor-quality editing (when he deigned to actually edit in article space rather than carping about endless issues on talk). This is not just a matter of walking away from a disagreement. In the case of Pavle Đurišić, I took it to FA, and he fought it tooth and nail every single step of the way, creating reams of text about issues he has shown he will never accept are reliably sourced. He showed no indication he learned anything from his first brush with ARBMAC, and I doubt he will learn from this ban if it is lifted. He showed a great deal of interest in advocating for very specific points of view, and I don't believe that lifting the ban would be in the interests of Misplaced Pages. If he is productively editing outside this topic, let him continue to do so. Surely there is much to do to improve WP coverage of the Ottoman period. Why does he need to project forward past 1900, where he had proved unable to edit without obstructionism and tendentiousness? A lifting of the TBan will just draw him back into the same contentious territory in which he failed to get the point in the first place. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 07:56, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
• Unban - For chrissakes. He's made a calm, good-faith request to have his topic ban lifted, he's given ample proof of having contributed beneficially in the meantime, and people are demanding he grovel. Just unban him and let him edit, if he violates policy then reban. Easy. Kindzmarauli (talk) 22:34, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Lifting of topic ban per my comment below, and Peacemaker's comment above. From what I've seen, the editing environment around former Yugoslavia topics has improved hugely over the last year or so, and allowing Antidiskriminator to return to this field would be a significant step backwards, especially as they appear to be unrepentant. Nick-D (talk) 09:18, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Concrete Proposal

IAW the discussion above, let's modify AD's topic ban from A ban on Antidiskriminator editing in topics involving 'Serbs and Serbia 1900-current' (broadly construed) to A ban on Antidiskriminator editing articles in topics involving 'Serbs and Serbia 1900-current' (broadly construed), but allowing edits to talk pages of such articles.

• Support as proposer GoldenRing (talk) 00:33, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per my comment above. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:11, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose, his talkpage behaviour was always at least just as big a problem as his article edits, and I don't see any indication why I should expect more constructive behaviour now than before. These talkpages are better off without him. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:30, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose until the editor frankly acknowledges the misbehavior that led to the topic ban, and commits explicitly to avoiding such behavior in the future. Cullen Let's discuss it 06:46, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree with Fut.Perf. and Cullen, and I can't help but notice that Antidiskriminator's approach in this appeal is to make as few commitments as they possibly can. Their entirely unsatisfactory initial post in this thread is a real warning sign to me that problems are likely to re-occur, and the vague commitments they have subsequently made give me little comfort. Nick-D (talk)
• Oppose per my comment above. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 07:56, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - I don't have any particular interest to edit talkpages. On the contrary, my approach will be "to make as few commitments as I possibly can", just like in this appeal. I clarified that: "I plan to strictly follow wikipedia policies and avoid both content and conduct disputes with other editors. If some dispute happens anyway, I will strictly follow WP:DR and limit my talkpage comments to 1) opinion and 2) wikipedia policy or reliable source in which they are grounded as much as possible."--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:03, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Can some one investigate this?

Can an admin see if it was correct for the article on pornstar Tory Lane to be deleted when it was nominated by a known sockpuppeter. This was the second time it was put up for deletion, the first time it was found in favor of keep (not even no consensus, it was keep). I don't like any article (even porno related) being put up for deletion more than once, especially if the first one was not "no consensus" which at least would mean maybe a second one eventually would be ok. It smacks of sour grapes of "losing" when a keep on deletion is nominated a second time. Add in the known sockpuppeter who is "retired" around the same time as the nomination closing... Just think some investigating is warranted.Camelbinky (talk) 00:11, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• Well, Camelbinky, the problem here is that there is no way Czar could have closed it in any other way. The two keeps have no argument to propose, and the deletes do have policy-based arguments--plus, it's people who sound like they know what they're talking about. As for the socker, I had a quick look but there is no SPI? Postdlf should be able to tell you more. Drmies (talk) 01:44, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
• WP:PORNBIO has evolved since the first deletion discussion, the article did meet the old criteria, and clearly does not meet the current criteria. I could see some room for a good faith, rather weak, WP:GNG argument against deletion, no such argument was made, and even if it had been, deletion would still have been a reasonable judgement call given the relative strengths of the arguments. It was a solid close based on the state of the deletion discussion. Monty₈₄₅ 03:23, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I see I was pinged because I blocked the account that nominated this AFD. The nominator was not yet a sockpuppeteer at the time of the AFD (or at least not yet known as such), but in any event this was their original account. Though their mass nominations were widely considered disruptive on the whole, the ANI discussion that came to that conclusion was subsequent to the nomination being made, and there was never a consensus to speedy keep the AFDs rather than close them on the merits of the discussion. In other words, I don't see any reason to question or overturn this AFD just because of who nominated it, even notwithstanding the fact it later became clear the account merited blocking (and boy howdy, did it ever).

@Camelbinky: In the future, please provide links to the discussion you're referencing so we don't need to spend time digging it up. More seriously, I can't find any indication that you've even attempted to ask @Czar: about their closure of this AFD, nor to notify them of this thread despite it raising a question about their admin actions. Please correct me if I'm wrong on that. postdlf (talk) 17:38, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

You're correct. I didnt link to the deletion. Oops. Sorry I made work for everyone. As for pinging the admin- I've never used the WP:AN before and did not realize the rules about pinging involved parties were the same as WP:AN/I, because I was not meaning to get the admin in "trouble" or have him investigated, he/she was doing their job, no need to get an admin in the mode of- "omg why am I and my actions being questioned?!". Oops. Which brings me to the fact that it wasn't meant to be a slur against the admin that they did anything wrong, and questioning an admin about their actions 99% ends up with "how dare you!" and condescending attitude. Sure, Czar may not be one of those admins, I don't know that and the fact that I'm scared to go directly to an admin to question "why?" speaks more to the reputation of admins than to the fact that I broke minor rule that has no consequence to the outcome of this discussion. The point is- I saw the closure of an AFD (America's Funniest Deletions in this particular case) that involved a nomination of some one I had recently seen declared to be a disruptive sockpuppetter with many many many edits (involving tagging and removal of info) on porn related articles, almost all of which were reverted by admins. Given that so many of the editor's other actions were removed, I felt it was prudent that people look into it. Frankly I don't know why the questions you, User:Postdlf raise are found so "serious" (Really? My actions were so serious? They affected this discussion about as much as Indiana Jones affected the outcome of the Raiders of the Lost Ark). So... Nope, I can't correct you that you're wrong on the facts, just about the meaning of those facts and that you needed to bringing them up on here in a bitey commentary instead of politely letting me know correct procedure on my talk page for future reference. As if you are chastising me for being an ass or doing some thing deliberately wrong? If you think I acted in bad faith, I think you need to look in the mirror as to your comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Camelbinky (talk • contribs) 11:03, 3 February 2015‎ (UTC)

Contrary to myth, most editors with administrator WP:UAL are more than happy to explain their actions to reasonably polite queries on their talk page. <humor> and the ones that aren't have to anyway per WP:ADMINACCT.</humor> So next time just start there. On the other hand, it's hardly a "serious matter," it's just a mistake. No content was harmed nor personal attacks launched during the making of this WP:AN thread. NE Ent 03:29, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

If a particular editor is finding that "questioning an admin about their actions 99% ends up with "how dare you!" and condescending attitude" then the problem may not be with the admin corps.... (Patient: If I touch my knee, it hurts! If I touch my forehead, it hurts! If I touch my abdomen, it hurts! If I touch my nose, it hurts! What's wrong! Doctor: It sounds like you have a broken finger.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Ah, yes, the obligatory Misplaced Pages version of "blame the victim", which once an admin at AN/I claimed was a legitimate course of action to do in Misplaced Pages in order to (in his words)- "bloody the witness" and went on to compare it to what defense attorneys do to rape victims. Though obviously that admin did not know, that at least in most if not all US states, that is actually not legal for the defense attorney to do thanks to rape shield laws. And for the record before I get stupid backlash- I did not compare this or anything on Misplaced Pages to rape, an admin at AN/I once compared his personal defense in a situation to that of what he believed was acceptable for those accused of rape do in a court of law; and that right there is where my distrust of admins began. One bad apple can spoil the entire perception of what the barrel holds.Camelbinky (talk) 14:17, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Five and a half years of active editing here, and I have asked a lot of administrators a lot of questions, and never once had a negative response. Only helpfulness. What's wrong with me? Aren't I belligerent enough? Don't I have a big enough chip on my shoulder? Cullen Let's discuss it 06:56, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Camelbinky, failing to first contact or to ever notify someone about a noticeboard thread is more "serious" than failing to include a wikilink; I can't fathom how you read more than that into what I said. An appropriate response to such a reminder would be "sorry, I'll remember next time," not a response that is six times longer than the original supposed "chastising" and does nothing but needlessly generate drama. I can also tell you that people (whether admins or not) are much more likely to react negatively upon discovering that someone has started a thread about their actions without telling them, than to a direct initial inquiry on their talk page. postdlf (talk) 17:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Administrator attention requested for User:Instalok's edits

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

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

Please see Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones#User:Instalok's edits to tropical cyclone articles. In a nutshell, I'm seeing major failures to communicate about the concerns others have brought up to his talk page. The fact that he's continuing problematic edits, such as here, makes me think a block may be the only way to get him to respond to my concerns.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:38, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

ah. so that you planned to blocked? just incredible! i'm always believe that i'm blocked. 4:52, 2 February (PST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Instalok (talk • contribs)

@Instalok: I didn't want to but you never addressed my concerns.--Jasper Deng (talk) 16:27, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• Looks like an English language competence problem to me. Squinge (talk) 10:20, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• This sort of situation is no fun for anyone, but I am leaning towards issuing a block here. His reply in this very thread is indicative of the problem. I have no idea what message I am supposed to get from the phrase "i'm always believe that i'm blocked" and unfortunately every other time he has contributed text to articles or comments on talk pages it has been similarly incoherent. This project is in English. If you can't understand and be understood in English you can't help build an encyclopedia in English. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:19, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
• The user recreated User:Instalok/2014 Pacific typhoon season after it already was deleted by User:RHaworth as an improper copy and paste (since there is no attribution of the source page). I've tagged the page again as a result.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:23, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
  • No comment on this user's overall history, and whether there's a problem or not, but users copy articles to their sandboxes to fiddle with all the time. I've added a note in the article history giving attribution; there's no need to speedy it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:13, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
• Reluctantly I think we have to declare a case of CIR here. At the end of the day Instalok's English is so poor that he should be encouraged to leave en.Wiki and edit his home Wiki instead. A block may be the only way to do it, but I would test the waters with a very short block first. It might not improve his English but it would get our message across. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:08, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Review block of TyTyMang

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

TyTyMang (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'd like to request a review of the indefinite block on TyTyMang, and the conditions set on the user by JzG (talk · contribs) for removing the block. From my observations of TyTyMang and a short review of his contributions, it appears to me that the user has been contributing meaningfully on talk pages and in project space; perhaps not directly contributing to articles but there's nothing that would demonstrate a need for the conditions or incivility presented by JzG when the latter issued the block on the former. Besides, I've never heard of "drama whore" being a blockable offense before.

The block does not seem reasonable at all, and JzG's attitude discussing the block both on TyTyMang's talk page as well as JzG's own feels incompatible with the level of civility and decorum we expect from admins. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 19:31, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I think the user should be unblocked. An indefinite block doesn't seem reasonable to me, and in reviewing a sampling of the user's contributions I couldn't find anything that seemed to warrant a block of any duration at all. JzG's approach in dealing with this user is simply wrong; it was not only a hasty and inappropriate thing to do, it was communicated in a very uncivil way. This is, in fact, a long term problem: he has a long history of questionable blocks combined with uncivil behavior, and I can't understand why nothing has been done about it before now. Everyking (talk) 19:48, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't know about JzG's past history blocking others (and honestly cba'd about it) but if you feel that something needs to be done, why not make a report on ANI? // coldacid (talk|contrib) 20:08, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I am aware of Guy's history — if you're interested (yes, I know you already said that you "cba'd about it"), please see Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/JzG2, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Abd and JzG, and Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/JzG 3. I was under the impression that these kinds of overly aggressive blocks were a thing of the past, and that Guy had since gone on to become a major asset to the encyclopedia. If this is a single lapse in judgment after several years of virtually spotless conduct, I'd suggest unblocking TyTyMang and letting Guy off with a warning to avoid these sorts of preemptive actions. On the other hand, if there is still a continuing pattern of incivility and misuse of adminship despite all of the past attempts at dispute resolution, then there's a serious question as to whether he's even suitable to be an administrator at this point. Kurtis 21:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I cannot see how an indefinite block can be justified. There is no justification for a short block, or even a warning, yet we seem to have skipped several stages for no reason. And what the hell is going on with that talk page message, since when did we blackmail editors as a proviso for getting unblocked? —Xezbeth (talk) 19:51, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Agree with above that the ban should be lifted. I would have proposed a topic/page ban instead but I think the situation didn't merit it. Avono (talk) 19:54, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Did he even do anything warranting a topic or page ban? Primarily, his edits have been made in AN, RSN, and the talk pages of several users. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 20:02, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Because it's a new account whose only contribution lies around gamergate without Mainspace edits but that doesn't merit any sanction at the current moment only future scrutiny for the possibilities that this is a sock as pointed out by Hobit. Avono (talk) 20:07, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, but the other thing to note is that TyTyMang is essentially being blackmailed with this block to volunteer for the GG case topic ban. If TyTyMang had actually done anything to warrant that, why not just apply that t-ban straight up? // coldacid (talk|contrib) 20:15, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Thats way I said no sanctions are merited. There is no threat in warning the SPA to follow policy. Avono (talk) 20:21, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

<ec>I understand the block. The account feels a lot like a sock. A lot. But I don't think that's enough of a basis for a block and I don't see any basis for a block barring an SPI hit--WP:DUCK doesn't quite get reached IMO. That said, I'd suggest the user stay away from Gamergate. It's not a place Misplaced Pages needs more partisan voices. Hobit (talk) 19:57, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)IMO, this "independent" attempt to circumvent the appeals process should be closed as out of order. Not 20 hours into this indef block we have editors calling for the head of the blocking administrator. Being that they were warned under the previous GS (which has subsequently been upgraded to ArbDS) I can only surmise that the indef may be too harsh, but that the block should stand as it's clear that the "campaign to neuter the ARBGG decision of anything that is directed to GG supporters" is clearly underway and should be stopped in it's tracks right here. No opposition to lowering to a 48-hour block but all these "independent appeals" of blocks are only showing the hand that more voices can be recruited from partisan sites to shovel FUD on the site to muddy the waters. Hasteur (talk) 21:00, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Making accusations of POV pushing & Harassment (FUD/partisan accusation) is a personal attack and is not constructive to this appeal without on-wiki evidence Avono (talk) 21:07, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm calling for someone's head, and I've been recruited from a partisan site? Do explain. —Xezbeth (talk) 21:12, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

As ad hominems go, that's particularly lame in this particular thread: Edit count for Everyking, Edit count for Xezbeth,Edit count for Avono,Edit count for coldacid NE Ent 21:17, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Please, Hasteur, do point out where I am demonstrating a lack of independence. While you're at it, please also point out where TyTyMang was warned in GS/GG, because I have not seen that for myself. Otherwise, I say take back your accusations. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 21:23, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Or immediately retract them if you can't back them up. Avono (talk) 21:28, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• I'm going to lift this block. This is without prejudice to Jzg, who I believe is trying to help out in an area that desperately needs administrative help, but the arbitration case that was just closed superseded community-based sanctions with arbcom sanctions. This was intended to reduce exactly these types of debates. Arbitration enforcement is the proper venue for this decision to be made as the community sanctions for gamergate are deprecated, so this can be considered a procedural unblock. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:31, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I support lifting this block outright as completely unjustified. There is absolutely no evidence of misconduct on TyTyMing's part. Kurtis 21:53, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I made a slight error here, the actual process is that admins may issue discretionary sanctions, including topic bans, at their discretion. If the user then violates the sanction that's when you go to WP:AE for enforcement. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:41, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Editors can't be sanctioned unless they're aware of the sanctions per Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Awareness_and_alerts NE Ent 03:18, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Possible vandal

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

I suspect that user SAJ 2 is intentionally masking their vandalism. All their edits are marked as minor, and they focus on changing the listed developers and publishers, but in most cases, the changes they make are false. Eik Corell (talk) 15:51, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I've just reverted several dozen changes to game publishers in the infoboxes of game articles: all were deliberate and obvious factual errors. Dai Pritchard (talk) 15:56, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I would just take this to WP:AIV and be done with it. WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 16:17, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, WP:AIV is better. Still, this isn't a wrong place to go; because of your notice, I've deleted his page creations (some were hoaxes, e.g. one that began airing next year!, and the rest were A3 speedy candidates) and blocked him indefinitely. Nyttend (talk) 17:13, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

AIV is the best place to go for obvious valdalism. If a user is masking it, here is probably better. And here isn't the wrong place for any issue which needs admin handling and contains no personal information or other content which needs to remain hidden, except when procedural issues require discussion about it elsewhere. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:58, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Account to block

See User:ZooBank This is a sockpuppet (confirmed on Meta) of User:Stho002, who is blocked on en.wp and species. He also has the sockpuppets User:Biota and User:BiodiverseCity and probably others. ZooBank should at least be blocked because he has used it to evade an indefinite block here. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

BiodiverseCity doesn't exist. Blocked the other two. Nyttend (talk) 14:39, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Any reason this couldn't go to Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Stho002? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:39, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

@Callanecc: There is no investigation to be done: it's a confirmed sock and was used here to evade a block. All that's required is just telling someone who has the tools to block (I would have done it myself had I had them). Checkuser was done on Meta after suspicions arose on species. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:24, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Argentine History February 2015

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Notwithstanding other restrictions on their editing, Cambalachero is permitted to edit all content on the articles Raúl Alfonsín, Carlos Menem, Fernando de la Rúa, Adolfo Rodríguez Saá, Eduardo Duhalde, Néstor Kirchner, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner and Pope Francis; as well as their talk pages. They may also make any edits reasonably necessary for those articles to go through the good article, peer review, or featured article processes. If Cambalachero engages in misconduct in respect of any of these articles, this exemption may be revoked either in part or in whole by an uninvolved administrator. Any subsequent appeal should be made at the requests for clarification and amendment page. The administrator must log the revocation on the Argentine history case page, together with a rationale supported by diffs.

For the arbitration committee--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:49, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sphilbrick (talk • contribs) 15:52, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Requesting review of close of RfC at Griffin article

• Short version:

Please review the RfC response and the close, and the implementing edit made by the closer. I tried to discuss with the closer, and that went no where.

The RfC was focused on whether to name Griffin as a "conspiracy theorist" in the first sentence. The issues are at the intersection of WP:BLP and WP:PSCI (conspiracy theories are generally in the realm of PSCI and fringe, and the intersection is discussed at WP:BLPFRINGE.

In the edit implementing the close, Nyytend rewrote the entire lead, going beyond the scope of the RfC.

The close did not reflect the actual response to the RfC, nor the complexities of how BLP intersects with PSCI.

I am not at all opposed to taking "conspiracy theorist" out of the first sentence (good arguments were made for that). I think the reasoning provided in the close was flawed and the implementing edit was definitely over-reaching, and will create big headaches for the rest of the work we have to do.

The close is going to be important to subsequent DR efforts on the page and I was looking for a more thoughtful close reasoning, that considered the range of views, and considered BLP and PSCI in light of each other. Instead, we basically got one admin's view.

• Long version:

I know this is a bit long; please take a minute to bear with me.

Nyttend kindly responded to a request to close the RfC at Talk:G._Edward_Griffin#RfC:_.22conspiracy_theorist.22_in_first_sentence. The question was whether to name Griffin as a "conspiracy theorist" in the first sentence. The issues are at the intersection of WP:BLP and WP:PSCI (conspiracy theories are generally in the realm of PSCI and fringe, and the intersection is discussed at WP:BLPFRINGE. In my view there are live, interesting questions here and anybody who treats the issues as cut and dry, on either side of the issue, is really missing the boat.

I am contesting the close itself, as well as Nyttend's edit to implement the close. I discussed it with Nyttend and I don't think he has heard me (he hasn't responded to my actual objections), so here we are.

This is a troubled article - it has been protected twice, in quick succession, for edit warring. There are strong views on whether/how to describe Griffin as a "conspiracy theorist" and how to discuss his medical views. We need to move carefully and conservatively in editing it. I am trying to work DR carefully to keep us out of AE, but we may end up there.

I've been trying to work DR in bite-size pieces. We were able to agree, during full protection, on modifying the infobox, and that compromise was implemented by an admin.

The RfC was narrowly tailored to discuss just the first sentence of the article. The RfC was well publicized, and we got a good (not great) range of thoughtful input from editors not already involved in the article. I was very interested to have the community weigh in, and to get a close that thoughtfully weighed the tension between BLP and PSCI, and that took into account what the community had to say about that, with respect to the issue at hand. The close will be important for resolving subsequent content issues that we still need to work through.

The close was to take "conspiracy theorist" out of the lead. The reasoning was based on "conspiracy theorist" being derogatory. In the implementing edit, Nyttend rewrote the entire lead.

I have two main objections:

1) In the edit implementing the close, Nyytend rewrote the entire lead, going beyond the scope of the RfC and ruining the careful effort to work DR slowly and bite-by-bite. I asked Nyttend to change his edit to only deal with the first sentence, and he declined, saying that: "If it's not neutral to call the guy a conspiracy theorist in the first sentence, it's likewise not neutral to call his ideas conspiracy theories." I pointed out that the RfC was limited to the first sentence, but he was not hearing that. He believes his edit to be solid. I don't. I think he is well intentioned but he is not honoring the RfC. The edit short-circuits/forecloses our efforts to work through the content issues and doesn't respect the perspective of several editors, which include involved admins.

2) In the close itself (which you can see in the link above), as well as subsequent comments on the article Talk page]] (at this section, and in discussion on my talk page (in response to my query on his talk page), Nyttend cited the view of a minority of respondents, that the term itself is derogatory; he didn't cite the many (and persuasive) arguments that it was UNDUE to name Griffin that way in the first sentence (in light of the rest of the lead), and Nyttend didn't cite or discuss any of the arguments made to keep "conspiracy theorist" in the first sentence, which are not without grounds in policy. The close reasoning did not reflect the actual response to the RfC, nor the complexities of how BLP intersects with PSCI. The issues are not cut and dry here.

In the discussions afterward, it became clear to me that Nyttend came in with clear views on the issue, and that he relied primarily on his own interpretation of PAG in doing the close, and in implementing it. He was unaware that most of the !votes were in favor of keeping "conspiracy theorist" (I know that !vote count is not determinative but it should be considered), and made it clear that he was unfamiliar with the PSCI shortcut to the part of NPOV that deals with fringe/pseudoscience in content in WP. (it is not bad to be unaware of things, but it is bad to close an RfC where PSCI is so central and to be that unfamiliar with it).

Again, this first RfC is going to be important to further DR efforts, and its lack of grounding in what folks actually said at the RfC, and in what PSCI and BLP say, are going to warp those further DR efforts.

I am not at all opposed to taking "conspiracy theorist" out of the first sentence (good arguments were made for that). I think the close was flawed and the implementing edit was definitely over-reaching, and will create big headaches for the rest of the work we have to do.

Please review the close and implementing edit. Thanks.Jytdog (talk) 19:49, 4 February 2015 (UTC) (edited to make it clear that I don't disagree with the conclusion of the close, but I feel that the reasoning presented in the close didn't reflect the full response to the RfC nor the complexities of the policies involved and will cause problems going forward Jytdog (talk) 01:39, 5 February 2015 (UTC))

• {{Do not archive until}} added. Please remove the {{Do not archive until}} tag after the review is closed. (I am adding this because RfC closure reviews frequently have been archived prematurely without being resolved.) Cunard (talk) 20:46, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. I would take issue with the close, because it seems to be saying that if material can be shown to be derogatory then the game is up because we will never include derogatory material in the first sentence or lead of an article. But I can think of comparable examples where consensus has been to include such derogatory material (David Icke, David Irving) so, for me, the close doesn't quite add up. On the other hand, I don't think it can easily be argued that the close should have been "yes". It could easily have been "no consensus", but there would have been no practical difference, because in that case the derogatory material should also have been excluded. So, I endorse the close just because there is nothing to be gained from overturning it. I can see the argument that the closer went beyond the scope of the RfC in their implementation of the result. However, the implementation of the close is not part of the close, so I would say that here is, strictly speaking, not the place to examine it. If a consensus on the implementation develops here, then fair enough, but otherwise it might instead be brought up on the article talk page, not for the closer to defend their actions but to test whether consensus supports them. Formerip (talk) 21:15, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Addendum. In writing the above, I hadn't twigged that there might be additional issues involved to do with use of tools. In that case, yes this is is the right venue for discussing the implementation. Formerip (talk) 23:35, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comments. I have looked carefully at the RfC and at the subsequent edits and discussions about the close, and I can see arguments on both sides of what is not a black-and-white case. About the most basic part of the RfC close, I think that it is reasonable for Nyttend to have concluded that the outcome was to remove "conspiracy theorist" from the lead sentence, based on the discussion that occurred. So I do not see a good reason to overturn that. I also think that the subsequent edit warring over the description, near the end of the lead section, of the subject's theory that the scientific establishment is in a conspiracy to suppress his fringe medical advice could have been avoided by simply looking for compromise language. Why not call it, instead, a "discredited theory"? But we are not here to discuss content. I think that there were multiple significant errors in the use of administrative tools in the close. Unlike Formerip, it seems to me that because this is AN, the use of those tools needs to be discussed along with the close itself.
  • The explanations given for the close demonstrate a disturbing lack of understanding of NPOV, BLP, and other important policies.
    • At Jytdog's talk page, Nyttend said: "We need to write this guy's article in a way that will be agreed on by his supporters and his opponents". There is nothing in NPOV or BLP that would give BLP subjects and their supporters that kind of veto power over content. If there were, then we would have to delete Kim Jong-un#Human rights violations and about half the content of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. Whereas it is reasonable to take the "conspiracy theorist" label out of the lead sentence, it does not follow that it has to be taken out of the entire page.
    • The longstanding consensus reached at the ArbCom Pseudoscience case says that obvious or generously recognized pseudoscience can and should be identified as such on our pages. And Jytdog is correct to cite WP:BLPFRINGE (to which I might add WP:VALID). (This is a conspiracy theory about pseudoscience, so please no wikilawyering about the RfC not having been about pseudoscience.)
  • As Jytdog correctly says, the RfC was carefully worded to be about only the lead sentence. Furthermore, a reading of the RfC comments makes clear that several editors specifically drew a distinction between the lead sentence and the rest of the lead section. There was no consensus that could be drawn about the rest of the page, after the first sentence. The closing administrator could in theory extend the application of the close to more of the page, if policy so required, but policy did not require that.
  • After Nyttend full-protected the page, appropriately, to stop edit warring, he then made an edit restoring the page to his preferred version: . An administrator editing through full protection is exercising a serious responsibility, because it is something that the rest of us are prevented from doing. Again, doing so could be justified when there are overriding policy concerns (such as BLP violations). But policy did not require this edit, and Nyttend knew by this time that the edit was controversial. Also, there is a longstanding consensus that full-protection is not supposed to be used to protect the "right" version of a page.
• --Tryptofish (talk) 22:42, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
• I would myself endorse the decision of closure, because most of the uninvolved members who had participated in this Rfc actually disagreed with the inclusion that was being discussed. VandVictory (talk) 01:18, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
• I don't see grounds for overturning the closure; although I think it violates WP:NPOV not to call him a conspiracy theorist or, at least, a supporter of conspiracy theories, in the first sentence, there are arguments in favor of exclusion, although I probably would have disputed the close if I had been active. However, the edit whitewashing the lead is not even consistent with the close; it is clear that there are no potential arguments to remove "conspiracy theorist" from the lead entirely.

  I hadn't noticed that he edited <strikie>through protection to restore his preferred version. That would normally be grounds for an immediate block. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:26, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

  I admit to tagging the article through protection; but something needed to be done to indicate that the status is solely Nyttend's opinion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

  Apparently, protection was on for less than a minute. Still, Nyttend's edit-warring to restore his own revision, not consistent with his close, was not "proper". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, it was set for 24 hours it looks like as it expired today, but it was implemented yesterday. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:26, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comments: IMO the page protection issue is a red herring. It was done to stop edit warring and very short term. This said, there is now a proposed lede re-write on the article talk page which is subject to on-going improvement. I posit that some tweaks will make it acceptable to all, thereby rendering this review moot. – S. Rich (talk) 02:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

In my view the proposal to rewrite the lead is premature. I'd like us to wait to see the results of this review. We need to go slow, bite-size. Jytdog (talk) 03:10, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

If this ANI plays out, what will we have? I see three possibilities: 1, The closing is endorsed. 2. The closing is overturned and a new closing is implemented. 3. The closing is overturned and the RFC is opened up for a new closing. With Number 1 the OP does not accomplish much. (The present version becomes the accepted (for now) consensus version.) Number 2 is unlikely because it entails one admin overturning another admin's decision. (Not a rare event, and the closing was done in a non-admin context. But unlikely.) Number 3 entails a continuation of the drama. In the meantime we are moving forward with a discussion to improve the lede on the article talk page. – S. Rich (talk) 03:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I think reviewing the closure would be helpful for you folks there. The main problem that I think people were hoping to see as Jytdog mentioned was where WP:PSCI fits into play here. The main result of going outside of the scope of the RfC and the use of admin tools at least has been fixed, but the actual closure seems to be something worth looking into. How we deal with fringe topics seems to not have been addressed in the closure, and Nyytend appears to not be familiar with PSCI policy within NPOV based on some conversations mentioned here, which appears to have lead to only a partial understanding of the discussion. A common problem I see in the article is that people cite BLP for removing "derogatory" content, but have trouble with PSCI where valid criticisms of fringe topics (i.e. psuedoscience, conspiracy theory, etc.) stay regardless of being perceived as negative (NPOV doesn't mean non-negative content). The RfC should have been closed with both policies in mind, but the benefit from revisiting the close would help orient future discussion about the tone to take in handling both policies going forward. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:26, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• comment - just to be super (maybe too) clear about what i am after here. I am looking for a restatement of the close, that takes into account what responders actually said and that deals with both PSCI and BLP - we will need this to guide further discussions on the page. I would also like a clear statement on the validity (or lack thereof) of the closer's implementing edit. This too will be important going forward. If the do-over of the closing results in overturning the surface result, that is neither here nor there to me; I think there are reasonable arguments for keeping and for removing "conspiracy theorist" from the first sentence. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:03, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Nyttend I don't know if you are following or have read the above, but if not would you please do so, and would you be willing to withdraw your close and implementing edit, and allow someone else to do the close anew? That would ease the situation. I have seen closes done by Dank of really complex RfCs and have respected his work. I would likely ask involved editors if that would be OK, and then ask him. Thanks. Nyttend I also want to apologize to you; I was looking for certain qualities (not answers but qualities) in the close and I should have not just thrown the close up for anybody to grab... I should have done it more intentionally and gotten agreement from editors at the page on a closer, and then asked someone. Sorry that you were pulled into something unawares. I do appreciate that you volunteered to do it. Jytdog (talk) 14:09, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• comment - Jytdog, it appears you want to choose your own closer and impose certain dictates. Your apology to Nyttend is certainly a respectable gesture, but it appears to be superficial because you haven't changed course. You stated, I was looking for certain qualities says it all. How is this not WP:FORUMSHOPPING? You may have attempted to qualify your desires as not answers, but your following statement I should have not just thrown the close up for anybody to grab... is very telling. The concerns you've expressed go beyond what editors are obligated to write in a BLP, perhaps because your own experience as a writer of prose is limited, and your focus as a biotech is of primary concern as evidenced by the emphasis you've given to PSCI in this BLP. I find it rather disruptive considering we are supposed to be writing about a person's life, not your opinions on laetrile or whether or not you agree in principal with this author's writings. I do hope an admin will take notice because this type of behavior goes beyond the pale. Atsme☯ 14:49, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Atsme - 1) I am writing on a public board where everyone can see. 2) I wrote: "I would likely ask involved editors if that would be OK, and then ask him." 3) I wrote: I "should have done it more intentionally and gotten agreement from editors at the page on a closer, and then asked someone. " 4) I don't believe for an instant that I could "pick my own closer". My point was that the selection of closer should have been intentional and not random. And of course, by agreement of everybody who cares. For folks reading here, the kind of reaction I just got, is why i will not be surprised if this ends up at AE. Jytdog (talk) 18:12, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• "choose your own closer": exactly, that's one reason I'm not comfortable closing here. (Lack of experience is another.) But thanks, Jytdog, that was kind of you. - Dank (push to talk) 15:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

thanks Dank - my intention was (and is, if we get there) that the closer would be acceptable to everybody.Jytdog (talk) 18:13, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Sure, I didn't mean you were trying to choose your own closer, I meant that I'm not comfortable closing on request because it raises eyebrows. - Dank (push to talk) 19:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support close. It is my understanding that the main issue is close review is whether the closer used reasonable judgment and whether another closer can understand why they closed it the way that they did. I concur with the close. Having not reviewed the RFC results in as much detail as I would if I were closing, I don't see anything wrong with the close. However, I am puzzled. What exactly is the original poster, User:Jytdog, saying is wrong with the close? It appears that he was asking for certain qualities for the closer or conditions on the close. The RFC had been open for 30 days, so that any experienced editor could have closed it, with or without a special request by an editor. Maybe I have completely misread the policies, but I don't see a policy that permits one editor to impose conditions on the close. It looks to me like a reasonable close in terms of deciding not to use the 'loaded' phrase "conspiracy theorist" in the first sentence in Misplaced Pages's voice. I support the close based on what I have seen, but I don't understand the argument by the OP. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:04, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

"so that any experienced editor could have closed it . . ." I think that may have been the key point. Nyttend didn't appear to be experienced in policies relating to fringe topics, and didn't appear to consider the comments from those addressing the fringe aspect in the RfC because of that. I'm not sure what others think, but if the opposite happened where a closer was not even aware of BLP policy and only summarized from the fringe perspective instead, I'm pretty sure that would be open to review too due to lack of basic understanding needed for the topic. Seems like a review is exactly what's needed when a closer unknowingly bites off more than they thought they were handling. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Robert McClenon thank you for asking for clarification. My problem is with the reasoning presented in the close, which is going to be cited in the rest of the DR process, and the implementing edit. The RfC question limits itself to the first sentence and specifically calls for consideration of BLP and PSCI. If you read the survey and discussion, there was robust discussion on the "no" and "yes" sides, with policy-based arguments, well-stated on both sides. And the counted !votes actually favor "yes" (keep "conspiracy theorist" in the lead). And if you step back a bit more and look at the talk page discussion, as a wise closer would do, you would see that there is some fierce discussion going on with respect to the tension between BLP and PSCI - we've already been to BLPN, RSN, and the fringe noticeboard. What was needed, was a close, that actually listened to what the community said and dealt with the policy issues that were raised, and was thoughtful. (remember, this is a BLP article of a guy who makes his living writing books and making movies pushing FRINGE ideas... and if you look at the Talk page discussion, we have believers in his ideas participating. and it is a BLP. Lots going on. ) If you read the close first and go look at the RfC, you would think it was SNOW. It was far from that. As I said, I found the arguments presented by responders, based on UNDUE, to take "Conspiracy theorist" out of the first sentence to be persuasive. I am OK with the surface of the close, to take it out. But the reasoning presented in the close is very thin, and doesn't reflect the discussion at all, nor does it mention PSCI. And based on discussions with the closer it has become clear to me that these are the ideas that he came in with. He found an echo in some of the comments (a minority of them) and went with that. He didn't actually close the RfC - he just made a SuperVote. And his implementing edit went way too far and rewrote the whole lead. Those are my objections. I hope that is clear. I am sorry if it was too long. Jytdog (talk) 19:52, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• I want to say two things based upon the subsequent comments here. First, I think it is incorrect to accuse Jytdog of forum-shopping, because it is well within Misplaced Pages norms to ask for a review of contested closes. (After all, that's why we have DRV for deletion decisions.) Second, I think it is necessary, not optional, for Nyttend to comment here, and tell us whatever he might think about the ways that he used administrative tools. I raised some significant issues there, and I see nothing subsequently to make me change my mind about those concerns. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:58, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• Added comment – The RFC was opened while another thread about the lede was ongoing. That thread was addressing the lede in a broader sense and we seemed to have agreement that describing Griffin as a conspiracy theorist somewhere in the lede was appropriate. What Jytdog's RFC did was to open another thread that produced the same arguments from the same people. And while the RFC was on-going, Atsme opened a thread that was broader in scope, but still concerning the same issues (NPOV & UNDUE). And now we have a fourth (or is it fourteenth?) thread here where the same old stuff gets argued. Nyttend's closing (and edit) had the immense virtue of great virtue of establishing a consensus version for the lede as a whole. With the present version (provided by Nyttend) in place, editors are proposing and discussing a re-write that will use either "conspiracy theory" and/or "conspiracy theorist" in the lede. WP:CCC is in play at the bottom of the article talk page. With this in mind, reviewing admins of this request should simply close the request without action and advise editors to strive on elsewhere. – S. Rich (talk) 16:04, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

How can it be true that Nyttend's edit "established a consensus version" and also true that a consensus contrary to Nyttend's edit had developed elsewhere and also true that editors are now working on an agreement about undo the controversial part of the edit? That does make it sound like an edit that was against consensus which has caused editors unnecessary work. Formerip (talk) 16:39, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support close as no arguments indicate that the close was improper, which is the sole criterion here. Collect (talk) 16:35, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
• Comment. To clarify my earlier response, I support the close as a plausible interpretation of the arguments (although it gives inadequate (apparently no) weight to WP:PSCI), but note that the closer's edit was contrary to the close in that there is consensus that it should be noted he is a conspiracy theorist in, at least, the first paragraph, and unanimity that it should be prominently noted in the lead that he supports conspiracy theories, if not that that he is a conspiracy theorist. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment This Noticeboard is not the place to relitigate the issues raised in the RfC. OP has not demanded that the close be set aside, only that there is sufficient, policy-based concern to be uneasy about its conclusion. Where there is good faith, reasoned concern about a close, a review by a second Admin is warranted. The matter can be put to rest, one way or the other, so that editors can work on improving other parts of the article. There will be no harm done if a thoughtful review affirms the original close. Whatever the outcome, all editors will have increased confidence that the result is robust and stable. SPECIFICO talk 18:53, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
• Close. Consensus is clear, there is nothing left to fix. Guy (Help!) 22:45, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages Issue - Corrections Canada and Media

Just wanted to make everyone aware of this: User_talk:198.103.109.141#WARNING.21_This_IP_is_being_watched_by_the_press_and_Correctional_Service_Canada.21 and http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/02/04/corrections-department-investigating-unauthorized-wikipedia-edits.html Mrfrobinson (talk) 03:17, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Hidden vandalism that lasts for a long time

While most vandalism is usually reverted instantly or within minutes, I have observed that some vandalism goes unnoticed for days, weeks...even over a year. This especially happens when vandalism is done on smaller, lesser-known pages including disambiguation pages, redirects and associated talk pages. It can even be embarrassing to people who Google their name and the names of their friends and family members. I sometimes search the names of people I know to see what comes up. There is this one girl I knew from high school who I put on Google search along with the name of the college she attends in mid-December 2014; I was then led to the Talk:Anthony, which said that some guy with that name had a crush on her; this vandalism was done in October 2013 and the only other edit that happened was SineBot. And then today I discovered this similar vandalism, also supposedly done by the same person in October 2013. Of course I removed the graffiti upon discovery. I do hope that nobody else within her network (and the network of the person who supposedly has a crush on her) did not see that vandalism.

I'd like to get to the attention of vandal fighters reading this that stub articles, disambiguation pages, redirects and associated discussion pages should not be left out. Maybe members of associated WikiProjects can help with monitoring for vandalism and other unconstructive edits. NHRHS2010 RIP M.H. (1994-2014) 04:18, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Posting links to highly obscure material which is embarrassing about your friend is pretty silly. I've just deleted the revisions to hide it. Regarding your post, have you now watchlisted lots of the kinds of articles you identify as being at risk to help with countering vandalism? Nick-D (talk) 04:47, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I personally have not been too active editing Misplaced Pages and fighting vandalism during my adulthood (sometimes I do, but not as much as 2007 and 2008). Upon further investigation of this vandalism, there were a whole slew of similar vandalism on multiple different articles which actually appears to come from a LOT of IP addresses. Possibly a troll. At least he/she does not appear to disrupt Misplaced Pages as of 2015... NHRHS2010 RIP M.H. (1994-2014) 04:57, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Also this is not the first time I have discovered vandalism that went by unnoticed. Those pages have never been vandalized before as not many people read those pages. And yes I personally think we should watchlist articles of whatever WikiProjects we are involved in (for example: I am part of WikiProject Airports so I should watchlist as many airport-related articles as possible). NHRHS2010 RIP M.H. (1994-2014) 05:04, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

CFD backlog

There is a CFD backlog, including stuff from November 2014 and December 2014. If anybody has the time/inclination, it would be appreciated... GiantSnowman 19:18, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

AIV backlog

Could someone please have a look at the outstanding AIV requests. Thanks JMHamo (talk) 20:05, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Administrative backlog