Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hijiri88 (talk | contribs) at 09:43, 12 April 2015 (→Interaction ban between {{u|Catflap08}} and {{u|Hijiri88}}). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

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

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

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

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

Template:Active editnotice

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

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

Archives

Index no archives yet (create)

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

• WP:CR
• WP:RFCL
• WP:ANRFC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other areas tracking old discussions

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

Administrative discussions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Requests for comment

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

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

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

(Initiated 83 days ago on 28 October 2024) Participation/discussion has mostly stopped & is unlikely to pick back up again. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talk:Israel#RfC

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

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

Discussion has slowed on the RFC. TarnishedPath 07:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 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)

  @S Marshall Thank you. TarnishedPath 10:38, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Estado Novo (Portugal)#RFC Should the Estado Novo be considered fascist?

(Initiated 11 days ago on 8 January 2025) RfC opened last month, and was re-opened last week, but hasn't received further discussion. Outcome clear and unlikely to change if it were to run the full 30 days. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 00:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Does this need a close? Aaron Liu (talk) 02:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I would have just closed it myself, but I don't exactly feel comfortable doing so since I've responded and have a bias about how it should close. Not opposed to just letting it expire, though. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 23:23, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I think it should just be left to expire. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment#Closing the discussion. The outcome is obvious and you can let it lie unclosed.—S Marshall T/C 00:01, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

 Not done for reasons given above. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.  04:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Deletion discussions

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 18#Category:Belarusian saints

(Initiated 30 days ago on 20 December 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 6#Category:Misplaced Pages oversighters

(Initiated 30 days ago on 20 December 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 31#Category:Disambig-Class Star Trek pages

(Initiated 18 days ago on 31 December 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

 Closed by editor Xplicit. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.  16:39, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 1#Category:Category-Class 20th Century Studios pages of NA-importance

(Initiated 18 days ago on 1 January 2025) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

 Closed by editor Xplicit. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.  16:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 6#Redundant WPANIMATION categories

(Initiated 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

Closure Review Request at MOS page

About three weeks ago, I closed an RFC at WT:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#RfC:_Comma_or_no_comma_before_Jr._and_Sr.

I concluded that there was consensus that, while both forms (with and without the comma) are acceptable, the omission of the comma is preferred, partly because the rules about punctuation following the suffix, if there was a comma, are complicated. I concluded that no change was needed to WP:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#RfC:_Comma_or_no_comma_before_Jr._and_Sr.. On the one hand, my close hasn’t been challenged in the usual sense, but, on the other hand, I have been asked to clarify, and it appears that there are low-grade personal attacks. The real question appears to be whether the use of the comma is permitted, and, if so, when. (I have an opinion, but it doesn’t count, because I was only closing, and, if I had expressed an opinion, that would have involved me.) So I am asking closure review on three points. First, was my closure correct, either a clear statement of consensus or a valid assessment of consensus? Second, are there any issues that should have been addressed that were overlooked? Third, is administrative attention needed because of snark and low-grade personal attacks?

Robert McClenon (talk) 17:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• Some of these are easier than others.

I honestly would never, ever, have closed that thing. While the use of a comma isn't all that important, an outcome that changes the name of something or someone to something that isn't generally used violates other, more common, guidelines and is thus highly problematic and certainly shouldn't be decided by a handful of people at a MOS talk page. That said, the clear outcome was to prohibit the comma. So yeah, I don't think your close summarizes the discussion. This kind of addresses both your first and second question.

The personal attacks thing is a lot easier. I'd say there are no meaningful personal attacks, at least not on that page (I didn't look elsewhere). In fact, I'd call it downright civil for a MOS discussion.

If someone held a gun to my head and made me close this thing, I'd go with "while this seems to be the right venue, a wider set of thoughts should be gathered, take this to WP:VPR or WP:MOS instead" Hobit (talk) 00:05, 6 March 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) 01:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I probably contributed to the confusion by implementing the proposed change in the MOS after I grew impatient of getting anyone to close to the obvious consensus, and then I didn't notice that DrKiernan changed the MOS wording again; when Robert McClenon finally closed it, it had DrKiernan's wording, not the one that we had voted on, and he noted that no change was needed; I didn't notice until today that that had happened. So now we're arguing over his version or mine. My wording (the one we supported in the RFC) is the somewhat more prescriptive "Do not place a comma before ...", while DrKiernana's "It is unnecessary to place a comma before ..." is more permissive, which has brought up arguments at new RM discussions: Talk:Samuel Goldwyn, Jr. § Requested move 1 March 2015 and Talk:John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial Parkway § Requested move 2 March 2015. See more at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#Clarification_on_wording. Dicklyon (talk) 03:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if this is the right place to request this... but the debate about whether to allow commas before Jr. or Sr. seems to be spiraling out of control, with multiple discussions happening on multiple pages (it is being discussed on individual article talk pages and RMs, at the main MOS page and at MOS/Biographies). Reading those discussions, I think we risk ending up with conflicting consensuses (a consensus in favor of allowing the commas at one discussion, and a consensus in favor of not allowing them at another). It would be very helpful to have one centralized discussion on the issue. Blueboar (talk) 17:50, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Where should the centralized discussion be? User:EdJohnston suggested that another RFC be opened at MOS/Biographies. Individual article talk pages are obviously not the place for the discussion. Can a centralized place be selected and the other discussions closed? (Alternatively, do we just want to go on with multiple uncoordinated discussions?) Robert McClenon (talk) 21:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: The village pump is the place for centralised discussion of changing Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines, as it is well-watched and open to editors who are not MoS acolytes. Please use WP:VP/P. RGloucester — ☎ 21:27, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Just to point out that several of those discussions are requested moves (either following reverts or requiring moves over redirects) which are being disputed because of the disputed wording at WP:JR (and its application to various titles). —sroc 💬 05:38, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

By the way, the section originally came in, in 2009, by BD2412, in this edit. It read: The use of a comma before Jr. and Sr. has disappeared in modern times, while the use of a comma before a Roman numeral as part of a name (II, III, IV, etc.) has never been accepted. Neither article names nor headers should include a comma before a Jr., Sr., or Roman numeral designation, unless it can be demonstrated that this is the preferred arrangement by the subject or the subject's biographers. Since that time there have been various minor mods. Sammy Davis Jr. was added as an example of no comma, and then in 2013 in this edit he was converted to an example of "unless it is the preference of the subject or the subject's biographers" in spite of evidence to the contrary. As far as I know, nobody has ever found a way to satisfy the proposed idea of "demonstrated that this is the preferred arrangement by the subject or the subject's biographers", which is part of the reason that a consensus was formed to remove it. Nobody has ever advanced an example of a name where it can be "demonstrated that this is the preferred arrangement by the subject or the subject's biographers". It's kind of crazy to let sources vote when we have settled on a style that makes sense for Misplaced Pages. Dicklyon (talk) 05:30, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that we haven't actually settled on a style. Both the "with comma" viewpoint and the "without comma" viewpoint have ardent adherents in discussions, but neither viewpoint has actually gained a clear consensus. Blueboar (talk) 21:22, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Blueboar's comment misrepresents the original position and the discussion in the RfC. The original wording was already to default to "no commas" (i.e., the preferred style); the proposal was simply to remove the exception based on the subject's preference, which a majority favoured based on reasons enumerated there. There were no "ardent adherents" for the "with comma" camp (this was never actually proposed), although some suggested that either might be acceptable or that the subject's preference should be decisive. The change Dicklyon made reflected the proposal; the words DrKiernan added changed the meaning in a way that was not discussed and had not attained consensus. —sroc 💬 12:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi all. Is anything happening with this request? Is there an active discussion anywhere on the Jr. comma issue? There are several pending RMs, but I'd like to contribute to the centralized discussion if there is one, or start a new one if there's nothing active. Thanks! Dohn joe (talk) 20:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

• It might help to get a list of the RMs that are still pending... Also... perhaps a list of any recently closed RMs. The results should be discussed in any future RFC. Blueboar (talk) 14:41, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

  As far as I know, these are the current or recent RMs:

  • Talk:John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial Parkway
  • Talk:Samuel Goldwyn, Jr.
  • Talk:Barack Obama, Sr.
  • Talk:Martin Luther King, Sr.

  If there are others anyone knows about, feel free to add. Dohn joe (talk) 21:22, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

  I'd ask that the 'Martin Luther King Jr.' page be returned to 'Martin Luther King, Jr.' That page and many other MLK pages were decommatized without an RM or discussion, even though it is obviously 'controversial'. I put a note up on the MLK talk page, asking that the comma be returned pending a time someone might want to start an RM to remove it. Thanks. Randy Kryn 4:52 26 March, 2015 (UTC)

These comma removals should not be controversial, since the MOS says that the omission of the comma is preferred. However, it appears that junior commas are inherently controversial. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:09, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Those comma removals should not be controversial, but they are because the wording you settled on in the MOS was not explicit in deprecating the commas as had been proposed in the RfC and editors who don't like it are using this as a basis to discount MOS. —sroc 💬 11:03, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

What I closed was to leave the wording as it was. If the consensus was to omit the "preferred" clause and forbid the comma, then my closing was incorrect. If the implication is that I should have used a supervote to close without consensus and remove the "preferred" clause, then that isn't my understanding of how closure works. What is the consensus at this noticeboard, anyway? Robert McClenon (talk) 13:59, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Your closure did not reflect consensus. The proposal was for the following wording at WP:JR:

This was supported by Atsme, Dicklyon, FactStraight, Herostratus, Tony1, and yours truly based on a list of reasons enumerated here. Collect and Randy Kryn supported the status quo ante, which allowed an exception for the subject's preferences. DrKiernan said: "It's too trivial for most people to care either way. ... So, neither or both should be acceptable." Aside from the proposal being supported by 6–3, none of those with a contrary view addressed the various reasons for the proposal. The consensus was clearly to adopt the proposal.

DrKiernan later unilaterally, without any further discussion or support, changed the wording of WP:JR to:

This was the wording in place when you closed the RfC stating: "The MOS page already states that the comma is not needed, so that the MOS page can be left as it is." However, this wording was not supported by consensus in the RfC.

If you now accept that this closure was incorrect, then you should reverse the closure or revise the closure to reflect consensus from the RfC (i.e., to adopt the wording originally proposed). Otherwise, perhaps this needs to be raised at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents instead. —sroc 💬 02:05, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I will review the closure. However, I disagree with the suggestion that the issue should be raised on WP:ANI. The procedures on closure state that closures should be reviewed at WP:AN, which is here. If there is consensus that my closure was incorrect, then it can be opened and reclosed. Alternatively, my closure can be re-opened here, and an administrative re-closure requested here. I made this request here, nearly a month ago, because this and not ANI is said to be where closures should be reviewed. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:11, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I only suggested AN/I because the edit screen has this notice: {{Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard}}. —sroc 💬 02:20, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

The situation of the two Martin Luther Kings (Jr. and Sr.) shows the problem and why the language should allow both forms. Dr. King is known and famous, and that widespread recognition of his name includes the comma. It is used in governmental honoring, on all his books, etc. Not to argue the case here (and I've asked several times for the Martin Luther King, Jr. article be returned to its proper name because the move which moved it was made as 'uncontroversial', common sense to know that it might be controversial, so can an admin please put it back to the previous name? Thanks). A hard and fast rule, one certainly not decided on by the community but by the small amount of people who inhabit MOS pages, and even that discussion seems inconclusive. Maybe let it be "argued out" at the Martin Luther King, Jr. page, which should be a good forum for an extended discussion of this. Suggesting that as an option. Randy Kryn 17:48 3 April, 2015 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn: The MOS exists for a reason. It sets guidelines for the style adopted by Misplaced Pages. If the community consensus is not to include commas before Jr. and Sr., then this should apply regardless of individuals' preference; we follow Misplaced Pages's style, not the style of individual subjects.

The problem is well illustrated by John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial Parkway and John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Library which have apocryphal titles using mismatched commas: all style guides advise that, if a comma appears in a name before Jr. or Sr., another comma must appear after as well; the fact that some individuals or bodies flout this rule of English pronunciation is no reason for this encyclopedia to follow in their folly. This is another reason to omit the commas altogether and avoid repeated arguments over proper pronunciation over and over again on article talk pages. —sroc 💬 02:14, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

• Propose reopening the discussion – Whatever way this closure review goes, the MoS changes instituted by this process will always be on extremely shaky ground. According to our policy on consensus, "Misplaced Pages has a higher standard of participation and consensus for changes to policies and guidelines than to other types of pages. This is because they reflect established consensus, and their stability and consistency are important to the community". I would say that not enough participation was solicited for such a massive change, and that even if it was, the subsequent errors in assessing the consensus that did develop (in favour of removing the comma) completely destroyed the potential stabilising factors that this RfC needed. I support the change, but was not aware of the RfC at the time, despite having various MoS pages on my watchlist. That's an indication that what we really need to do is reopen the RfC, widely advertise it in appropriate places, and generate a firm consensus that cannot be challenged across many pages, as is happening now. RGloucester — ☎ 02:12, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Request for Closure of Closure Review

This closure review request has been open for nearly a month and has gotten nowhere. Is it time to close it as No Consensus? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:09, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

The fact that this review has gone stale is no justification to support "no consensus" following your controversial closure of the RfC with a conclusion that did not reflect the discussed consensus, effectively overruling the consensus. We urgently need resolution of this issue.

It should be noted that this controversy has now been used to block page move requests supported by the RfC discussion:

• Samuel Goldwyn, Jr. → Samuel Goldwyn Jr.

(Not moved: see Talk:Samuel Goldwyn, Jr. § Requested move 1 March 2015)

• John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial Parkway → John D. Rockefeller Jr. Memorial Parkway

(Not moved: see Talk:John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial Parkway § Requested move 2 March 2015)

• John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Library → John D. Rockefeller Jr. Library

(Not moved: see Talk:John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Library § Move discussion in progress)

• Barack Obama, Sr. → Barack Obama Sr.

(Not moved: see Talk:Barack Obama, Sr. § Requested move 4 March 2015)

• Martin Luther King, Sr. → Martin Luther King Sr.

(Open: see Talk:Martin Luther King, Sr. § Requested move 4 March 2015)

—sroc 💬 10:46, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

What is the consensus here? Regardless of whether I made a mistake in closure, I think that something should be done rather than leaving this issue open for more than a month. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:59, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I've presented a possible option in my latest comment above. Randy Kryn 17:54 3 April, 2015 (UTC)

Blaming the closer for not following the exact dynamics of what happened is not a good scheme. The problem is that some editors who were not involved in the discussion don't like how it came out. Might as well just start another RFC to see if they want to overturn what the MOS has said since 2009, or the recent tweak to it. Dicklyon (talk) 04:06, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Am I mistaken, or did the recent 'tweak' remove the option of keeping the comma? Tweaks which limit actions are not little changes, but major moves, and those are the ones which should have much wider participation than just the few regulars who now create (and often restrict, such as this comma decision) the MOS guidelines. There are so many pages and so many walls of text that the vast majority of editors won't know when something important is being changed. Even people reading those pages aren't following everything, and like the recent back-history I looked up about how the "rule" about upper and lower case titles came into being, sometimes a major change is in the middle of the wall of text and not seen by many editors. The problem with MOS is too much of it in the hands of too few editors, with people who know how it works putting in their own favorite site-wide changes which then create controversy (as with this Jr. and Sr. thing, should be on a article-by-article basis. Dr. King has always been comma-Jr., and changing it is literally changing his name). Randy Kryn 5:23 4 April, 2015 (UTC)

Even back in the 60s, the comma was sometimes omitted, even in Ebony magazine. Do you think they were trying to change Dr. King's name? Seems like a stretch. Dicklyon (talk) 06:30, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

It removed the exception of keeping it at the preference of the subject, since there was no reason for that exception and no way to determine it. And it removed Sammy Davis Jr. as an example of that; his name had had the comma inserted at random; most of his albums and many of his biographies, including one by his daughter, omit the comma, so the random claim of his preference was specious. Dicklyon (talk) 06:08, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

DrKiernan: "It's too trivial for most people to care either way." Randy Kryn: "... something important is being changed." Mmm, right. It is annoying when people who are dedicated to language and style issues agree on what guidance MOS should provide (based on style guides written by experienced language experts) and those who aren't invested in it lobby to ignore MOS when it impacts a topic they have some interest in (preferring what they're used to over what's right). —sroc 💬 06:21, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Sammy Davis Jr. must have asked that the comma not be used on his albums. The difference is that Martin Luther King, Jr. used the comma on all his books, so he thought of it as part of his name. I guess this is a generational thing, that the new generations will look at the comma in the name as 'old style'. But should Dr. King remain as 'old style' as he was known in his lifetime and how the U.S. government refers to him at his Memorial and the day named in his honor? Yes, I personally "see" it as part of his name, and seeing his name without a comma looks odd. Again, that could be generational. But it is historically accurate. How far from historically accuracy should Misplaced Pages go? If the only difference is a comma, then I'd suggest keeping the comma for sake of accuracy. Randy Kryn 6:29 4 April, 2015 (UTC)

Dr King's style or his publisher's style? And what difference does that make? As a matter of style, we are free to choose whichever style we prefer for Misplaced Pages, as documented in our MOS. Misplaced Pages routinely changes quoted text for typographic conformity with our MOS irrespective of others' preferences (Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style § Quotations §§ Typographic conformity). In any case, this was all covered in the RfC. The issue here is that the RfC was closed incorrectly. This is not the forum to re-hash the arguments all over again. —sroc 💬 06:52, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Requesting adjustment to an ANI discussion closure

Two weeks ago, Drmies closed an ANI discussion, now archived here. Reading through the discussion, you can see the !voting was for a normal WP:TBAN topic ban, not anything more narrow. Alexbrn's initial wording did say "blocked indefinitely from all circumcision-related articles" but every other !vote was for TBAN, and then Alexbrn also demonstrated his !vote was for a normal indef TBAN in his follow-up comment at the bottom of the thread, regarding Sugarcube: 'Boomerang. If would be helpful if the closing admin could go "two-for-one" and TBAN this obviously unhelpful circumcision POV-warrior too.' However, Drmies posted in the close at ANI that the editor is "indefinitely banned from editing circumcision-related article and their talk pages," and "from Circumcision-related articles and their talk pages, broadly construed" at the editor's User Talk.

I didn't think much of it at the time, figuring "it's only a problem if it's a problem," but since then Tumadoireacht has made two edits in the area of the topic ban, here and here, continuing the same behavior but doing it at User Talk pages. A normal TBAN close would not have allowed these edits but the more narrow wording used in the close does.

I brought this to Drmies' attention via email and he agreed with an adjustment to the close. He said he didn't have the time at the moment to dig into it himself, and suggested I bring it to AN where he didn't expect it would be a problem, so I'm bringing it here for discussion and action. The specific action I'm requesting is for an adjustment to the closure language to that of a normal TBAN.

Thanks... Zad68 13:53, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry this is my mistake for being too specific in my wording (and not thinking/remembering that disruption can decamp to User Talk pages). My intent was that a normal topic ban should apply to put a stop to the disruption. I would support the adjustment. Alexbrn (talk) 14:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

• Yeah, I'm a tad occupied with Verlaine at the moment, trying to follow the beat of his joyous drums. Zad did indeed ask me about this and I have no objection to some further scrutiny of the discussion and the preciseness of my close: if I read a "broadness" into the comments that wasn't there, by all means let's get it right. Thanks Zad, Drmies (talk) 14:34, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

This is a bit rich. Pound of Flesh territory. If another editor welcomes discourse on his or her own talk page it is really of no concern to the likes of Zad and Alexbrn. What exactly is it that these lads fear so greatly ? Discussion anywhere ? Challenge ? / Being contradicted ? A balanced and inclusive article ? Is the subtext a push to have a premature Featured Article status sought for the very flawed Circumcision article ?

Perhaps I should expect a writ from Zad if I discuss genital cutting in my living room or the local pub ? I will pursue with vigour an appeal if an attempt is made to alter what was already a bit of a railroading . Drmies speaks of "disruption" which means "unplanned, negative deviation from the expected delivery" What expected delivery and expectation exists here. Please remind yourselves

Also is Zad in contravention of WP policy in not informing me of this discussion/attempt to gild the lily  ? --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht /_Stalk 15:42, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

• Tumadoireacht's contribution here is in itself a pretty good indication of why an adjustment would be helpful. Alexbrn (talk) 15:44, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

• Not to mention that a pound's worth of foreskin is massive. Drmies (talk) 17:26, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Alexbrn often reminds me of Greta Garbo. So taciturn. So enigmatic. Foreskins sell by acreage rather than weight Drmies, ( http://thetyee.ca/Views/2007/01/30/Foreskin/) but the pound referred to above was not money but weight. Since Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice -"A pound of flesh" is a figurative way of referring to a harsh demand or spiteful penalty.

Oh dear - wait - Is this a circumcision related article or talk page ?

May I even speak here in my own defence ? We cannot mention the sale of foreskins cut off by circumcision in the circumcision article (or indeed any of the ways cutters dispose of them including godparents or grandparents eating them) due to the enigmatic brotherhood embargo here represented by two of its luminaries. ( Expect the others shortly if it looks at all possible that I will not be made to walk the plank again) So I am relieved you brought up price Drmies. Do you think maybe the place for mentioning price is the article itself though ? What price freedom ? Still Alexbrn is correct - an "adjustment would be helpful" - just not the one that Zad is clamouring for.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht /_Stalk 23:45, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Again, the original discussion is archived here. The request is to adjust the wording of the close to match the community TBAN found in it. Zad68 03:55, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Once again Zad is misrepresenting events - there were 8 votes to support the TOPIC ban that Alexbrn proposed ( for me and and 5 votes opposing it.) which he worded thusly:

"In view of this continued uhelpfulness I propose that it would be for the good if Tumadoireacht were blocked indefinitely from all circumcision-related articles

Then, near the end of the discussion, long after all votes but the fifth one opposing the ban had been cast , Alexbrn reacted to a comment seeking the banning of Zad and Doc James ( for alleged Non NPOV partisan editing motivated by religious affiliation ) by newly seeking a TBAN on the editor who made the comment. Naturally Doc James agreed, and there followed a short discussion on the motivation for Doc James pushing for a severe penalty with one editor asking whether Doc was "responding to the personal attack with calls for procedural strikes" . How this gets itransmogrified into "Everyone agrees" to a wider ban is a stretch.

Is it really WP practice to attempt to further prevent any discussion by an editor so topic banned from personal talk pages or is there some other agenda afoot here ? To borrow Alexbrn's original phrase "It would be good" to know !--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht /_Stalk 13:55, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Re: Is it really WP practice to attempt to further prevent any discussion by an editor so topic banned from personal talk pages, the answer is Yes, that is the normal result of the typical "topic ban" on Misplaced Pages, the topic can't be discussed anywhere on Misplaced Pages, please familiarize yourself with the WP:TBAN policy page. What's happened is that the community supported a WP:TBAN, but the wording provided to you wasn't clear enough. The request here is to provide you clear wording that is in line with the TBAN. Zad68 14:16, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes a topic ban widely construed was the result and just needs to be stated. This editor can and should work on something else. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:37, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

No it was not. A specific proposal was put forward (" blocked indefinitely from all circumcision-related articles") and voted upon as originally worded. If you wish to pursue a website wide topic ban lads then you must make a new proposal, not an amendment proposal and let folk consider it, discuss it, and reach a consensus on whether it is needed.

Now If I am not writing on Circumcision page or its talk page or any of the other 20 or so genital alteration/ mutiliation pages and yet you still want to hound out any discussion on my or other editor's personal talk pages, your motivations for doing so may come in to question and your hounding may boomerang. There is a great deal of discussion of COI at present - if the group of editors who are harassing editors at Circumcision who do not comply with an unbalanced positive presentation of Circumcision do in fact all belong to one ethnic group for whom Circumcision is sacred then it behoves them to declare this conflict of interest. Just as it would behove the Circumcision article to mention that the W.H.O. chief expert on Circumcision who is pushing it as a HIV prevention tool in Africa is also the inventor of and has a consequent commercial interest in, the three main tools used to lop off foreskins in clinical settings. --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht /_Stalk 13:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

You are either very naive or very stubborn, or both.

Would you like to know what invariably happens when topic-banned editors come here to defend their right to keep arguing their case, supported by a long spiel reiterating their passionate belief that they are bringing The Truth™ and should thus be allowed wide latitude to continue disrupting the project?

I ask because you may be about to find out the hard way. Guy (Help!) 15:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Interaction ban between Catflap08 and Hijiri88

I am not at all interested in who is right or wrong, only in what is best for Misplaced Pages. In this instance, an interaction ban is the obvious solution. There is an ongoing request for Arbitration which looks likely to be declined specifically because no solution has been sought at AN/ANI first. There was a discussion that was archived and which I was forced to hat here It contains enough links (as does the Arb case) to provide a convincing argument as to why an interaction ban is the best solution here. Then if that is not enough, further action could be taken. I would recommend standard IBAN rules, as there is nothing that extraordinary here, just two editors who simply are never going to get along. If we put the needs of the encyclopedia first, it is my opinion that this is an obvious first (and hopefully last) step in achieving peace.

• Support as proposer. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Actually, per recent history, I would myself support an additional i-ban between Hijiri88 and myself, possibly joint i-ban if necessary. John Carter (talk) 15:19, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

You can propose that as a separate item below, as some might pick one and not the other, so we can't lump them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:07, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Support, probably long overdue. Guy (Help!) 15:46, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Support - like Dennis, I can't work out who on earth is right and who's wrong, but I do know that the conversation on WT:WER was not conductive to retaining editors. Ritchie333 16:57, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Support - This does seem like the obvious solution. BMK (talk) 18:13, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Support - As I myself have requested for an i-ban here --Catflap08 (talk) 18:15, 9 April 2015 (UTC) I do however hope that the i-ban will include other accounts/names used by the other party involved. --Catflap08 (talk) 18:25, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

• Please take note of my comment here: . I will not interact with user:Sturmgewehr88.--Catflap08 (talk) 20:44, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
• @Catflap08: an i-ban is an interaction ban between the individuals involved, under whatever accounts or IPs they might be editing from. Granted, in some cases, if the IP or other account does not clearly acknowledge their identity, it can be harder to enforce, but such actions also in general qualify as sockpuppetry and abusing sockpuppets to avoid sanctions is generally itself actionable. John Carter (talk) 18:30, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I do make my own conclusions upon reading the latest rather lengthy statements of the editor involved. The statements leave me being a bit baffled and the conclusions I do come to I’d rather not post. Since I received some emails concerning the editor in question and also by reading about some past conflicts that did not involve my person I would just like to ask again if the I-ban would affect the editors no matter which user name they may choose. I myself have only used this name for nearly 10 years now. Some users do tend to change their names, so I just want to make sure that in future I do not run into the editor in question. Does an IBAN consider other names that may be in use?--Catflap08 (talk) 18:52, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

@Catflap08: Yes, if he interacts with you under another username (or IP) then he would not only be violating the IBAN but he would also be violating WP:SOCK. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 19:30, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

There may be a problem in proving that the IP or other account is the same, and that might require input at ANI or elsewhere, maybe at WP:SPI, but any time an individual already under an i-ban abuses socks as well, then the penalties tend to be rather longer than they would be for either behavioral problem individually. John Carter (talk) 19:36, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

If that is the case then the procedure does have some flaws. If an IBAN is indeed imposed a WP:Sock should take place at the same time or not? Given the facts presented to me via mail the wish to see me being banned for Misplaced Pages is indeed a reoccurring pattern of past behaviour. On a side note I did indeed initiate a small number of articles – most of them alive and kicking without the need of a further input by myself – I do not regard the input on Misplaced Pages to be a contest on winning or losing. --Catflap08 (talk) 20:12, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Could someone please look into this suspicious email contact? It's almost certainly my long-term stalker continuing to harass me and mislead people years after being site-banned. (I know he's still watching because of his other off-wiki activity.) The fact that neither Catflap08 nor John Carter have public email addresses means this person has an active sockpuppet account. Additionally, I would like Catflap08 and John Carter to provide some shred of evidence that I have been editing under sock accounts or undeclared IPs over the past year before continuing these ridiculous allegations. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:48, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support - per my statement at ArbCom. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 18:28, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
• Weak support I'm extremely skeptical of IBANs as a general rule; in my experience, they almost always lead to more drama than they resolve, especially if one or more of the involved editors shows a proclivity for being unwilling to let issues go, which there is certainly evidence of in this case. That being said, I don't think I can recommend a better course of action as the next reasonable step, and with at least one of the involved parties indorsing this approach, it seems worth a try. I'm not really sure if either side has stopped to think about the implications this would have to their editing, however. Both work in some common articles and areas that have very few other active, regular editors. I wonder how feasible this solution is when both sides have come to be as atangonistic as they have in part because of their attachment to these areas and an inability to reach compromise over relevant content issues. One or another of them will have to give way in order to abide the IBAN, and I'm not sure both are capable. In circumstances where discussions only involve two or three users, it's not as if they can abide the IBAN by speaking to the content issues alone and staying away from comments about eachother's approach and behaviour; if both were capable of doing that, we wouldn't be here in the first place. So yes, my basic sentiment is that this is our best hope for resolving this situation short of one party getting blocked, but I won't be surprised if it's not too long before ANI sees the first report of a violation of the ban... Snow 21:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Note that Catflap08 has provided few diffs to illustrate my "personal attacks" and "stalking" of him. This is because any fair reading of the evidence would indicate otherwise.

I don't think an IBAN is appropriate, given that I have done nothing wrong here. Catflap08 has a particular POV and when other users respond by saying the sources don't support him, he responds with forum-shopping and personal attacks. A mutual IBAN would protect his more disruptive edits from me. A one-way IBAN would at least protect me from his continued and unapologetic personal remarks. But the project as a whole would be much better served if Catflap08 was indefinitely blocked.Opposition withdrawn.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

A one-way IBAN? Sorry, that's not how it works. I didn't even know you two were still going at each other (in the past, I asked for an admin to put a stop to it myself), so I fully support an IBAN. Erpert 23:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

• The purpose of an interaction ban isn't for the sole benefit of the two users, it is for the benefit of the community. It is an alternative to using the block tool, so we get your contributions, you both get to stay unblocked. At this point, it is obvious that interactions by the two users is causing problems outside of a single article. Who is to blame? Frankly, I don't care, as it is clear that any interaction is disruptive to the project as a whole. What I want is a good editing environment for all editors, which takes precedence over any single user's desires. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

My only concern is that we've already seen administrative involvement fail to separate these two. By the way, did anyone remember to inform SilkTork about this, since he was the last admin to attempt to halt this nonsense? As its now down to a community vote, I'd like his insight in particular and I think he might want to know what happened here, in light of the conduct he requested during his mediation of the issue between the pair. Hijiri seems indignant at the implication of the IBAN, but I think, in opening this discussion, Catflap may have spared him a block for that whole affair and his persistence in seeking this conflict out. And that's rather the point I started out to make here. IBANs only really work when both parties really want them to and have accepted there is no solution but to cooperate in not cooperating. It's silly, but if it works and stabilizing the problem, who cares, right? The problem is that one or both of the parties is determined to continue the fight, IBANs collapse in on themselves and become the community fabric equivalent of super-massive black holes, sucking up indescribable amounts of community effort and contributor man-hours in acrimonious discussions of the IBAN itself and whether it's being violated and, if so, whose fault it is. And it can be unending. And you can bet it won't be long before these two cross paths again, because they both operate in some shared (and very niche) spaces, and both clearly have strong feelings on said topic. In short, I don't see this IBAN would work, short of a mutual TBAN in those areas as well...

I really honestly sometimes think IBANs are broadly a mistake and ought to be abolished for anything but voluntary application. If someone is not behaving in accordance with our behavioural policies and can't be convinced to, they really ought to just be blocked. The rationale behind IBANs is "Well, we don't want to lose two or more valuable contributors, and this seems to be limited to their interactions with eachother, so let's just remove that factor." The problem is that, if an editor shows a willingness to break with our community principles of conduct in one context, there's almost certainly another context in which that user could be compelled to do so again. No matter how specific the frustration seems to be to that user, there's at least a handful of other editors out there who will rub them the wrong way in basically the same way, and if said user can't comport themselves in those circumstances then, at a minimum, the community should acknowledge as much (and probably impose sanctions as necessary), not try to patch around that core issue. When two editors lock horns and can't let it go, when they come to uncivil words and personal attacks, an administrator or the community broadly should step in. If they can't head the advice being given them in those administrative/community processes, then a line should be drawn for them, beyond which their behaviour cannot be tolerated, as was done in this case by Silk. The party that next insists upon that problematic behaviour should then be blocked. This is all spelled out in policy.

IBANs attempt to allow us to avoid assigning blame and/or spare someone a block, but in the long run in most cases, I don't think they do the involved editors any favours and certainly not the community. All they ever seem to do is prolong the ugliness. So I think we need to think carefully about whether to institute an IBAN here if both parties are not going to embrace it. If that proves to be the case, I say we ask SilkTork if he wants to apply any of the blocks he seemed prepare to implement if his administrative proscriptions were not followed. There's been a lot of WP:IDHT in this case and I suspect at least one of the involved parties will fail to hear the IBAN, so if both parties are not going to work at settling this issue, we should send a message composed of substance, of the type that starts at 24-hours in size. Snow 06:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

• • • The whole idea is that instead of reading through walls of text, it is possible to simply block them if they violate the iban, without having to get bogged down in the merits of the arguments. I am not a fan of ibans, but sometimes, they are the lesser of all available evils. This is one of those cases. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 08:55, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support two-year IBAN Okay, I've changed my mind. I've had enough of this hassle, and want the IBAN if only to get Catflap out of my hair. But I think a definite-but-very-long time limit is preferable to indefinite for the following reasons:

1. Past experience has taught me that even having a block log is enough for AGF to go out the window, so having a ban permanently in effect is not attractive, especially if the ban has no purpose (see 2 and 3 below).
2. Catflap has announced his retirement/semi-retirement. If this is genuine, then there's no point keeping what would effectively be a one-way IBAN in effect indefinitely.
3. My CIR and NOTHERE/BATTLEGROUND concerns regarding Catflap still stand. Even if I am not the next one to take him to ANI, his state of always being in conflict with one or more users has not changed. If he doesn't retire voluntarily, I am 90% certain he will be blocked within the next two years.
4. His comments on this thread make me think that if he doesn't retire, he will immediately violate the IBAN himself by accusing the next Japanese IP he comes into conflict with (it happens a lot) of being me. He's already done it on the Kenji article, but there was no IBAN then.
5. If after two years of us both editing English Misplaced Pages constructively with no violations, one or both of us wish to renew, it can be discussed at that point.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:37, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Also an IBAN without further clarification would be technically difficult. Before imposing the IBAN, could someone take a look at the Kokuchukai article and clarify whether one or both of us would be banned from editing it? Catflap created the page first, but 90% of the current article is my work, and both of us are intimately aware of these facts. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:41, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Please read WP:IBAN and see exactly what it discusses. It refers only to direct interaction, it does not rule out the possibility of developing articles independent of discussion between individuals, or much anything else, just directly discussing each other or each other's edits. And I would myself

Support indefinite i-ban as per the standard form, with perhaps a possibility of review after no less than one year. John Carter (talk) 18:31, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

@John Carter: So Catflap is allowed knowingly alter my wording, and I am allowed knowingly edit an article he started? Unless someone else radically alters the page again (not likely) or the page is deleted and recreated (even less likely) this situation is not going to change. Please actually read my question before posting an inane remark that doesn't answer it at all. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:48, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Hijiri88, stop with the personal attacks. You've been told this before. Erpert 08:48, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

@Erpert: What are you talking about? Where in my above question is there anything approaching a violation of NPA? Yes, I have been told to cut out the non-personal-attacks-that-other-people-choose-to-read-as-personal-attacks before, but you (and Catflap08, and John Carter) were also told (repeatedly, by multiple users) to stop choosing to read such things as personal attacks when they very clearly aren't. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:22, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, your use of the word knowingly seems a rather obvious jump to conclusions contrary to WP:AGF. And, yes, Hijiri, I did read your comment to which I responded. Only after the fact did you do something to indicate that you saw a problem. Rather than rather presumptuously assume bad faith of others, maybe it would make sense if you bothered to make coherent statements which actually say what you want them to say from the beginning, rather than make irrational assumptions that everyone will automatically as a matter of course review the entire edit history of the article and find edits with which you disagree. So, in the future, if you have reservations about others, please show the good grace to actually indicate what they are. And I note you still have not provided the clear evidence by diffs on this page to support your insinuations, which is generally considered good form. And, finally, Hijiri, although I think it has been rather obviously indicated by multiple users now, maybe it is time for you to realize that if other people consistently say you are wrong about something, like your personal view of what are and are not personal attacks, even if you believe otherwise, maybe you are wrong. This lack of clarity in speech and thinking might also extend to other matters, like your refusal to actually support allegations through diffs, or even specifically indicate what they are in a timely manner, as per your above revisionist comments which indicate allegations only after the fact, and then insultingly put down others for not having reviewed everything for you, rather than do the polite thing and actually indicate the behavior you are objecting to from the beginning. John Carter (talk) 14:27, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I was simply referring to the "inane remark" comment. Erpert 19:08, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

@John Carter: No, you see, if I have already directly stated that I know Catflap started the article, and Catflap has already directly stated that he knows 100% of its current wording is now mine, then it can't possibly violate AGF to assume that one or both of us know the things we say we know. I made all of this clear in my initial question before you posted a response that didn't answer said question. Also, could you please stop insisting that multiple users have consistently told me I am wrong? You are literally the only person who has disagreed with me on any of this, which is precisely why I am certain that unless Catflap radically alters his Misplaced Pages activity he will be blocked within the next two years with or without an IBAN. I am not the first person to say this, and in two months you are literally the only person to say otherwise.

@Erpert: Well I can't very well say "your intelligent and considered remark that completely ignored my question", can I?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:43, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Support with a degree of extreme prejudice that the first offender is blocked. We are no longer at the stage of second chances or listening to any more time-consuming chest beating or excuses. With warnings given to both of them for their behaviour it is either this ban or a time-out. Hijiri's recent outpourings suggest that user has lost the plot regarding Catflap, and is heading for Wiki-suicide unless this ban works. And Catflap's refusal to back down or strike inflammatory comments indicates a user who is sucking the energy out of those drawn into this personal dispute. We are an encyclopedia not social services - if folks can't conduct themselves reasonably we are not here to counsel them and hold their hand, we simply restrict them or ask them to leave. SilkTork 18:12, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

@SilkTork: So you're supporting a two-year IBAN, given the circumstances that Catflap is retired and/or semi-retired and the odds of us continuing to "interact" with each other after an IBAN working for two years are infinitesimally small? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

A "retirement" or "semi-retirement" is more often honored in the breach. Best to have things covered for the (almost) inevitable return. And if the retiree doesn't return, the IBAN has no effect on you whatsoever, because there's no one to interact with. BMK (talk) 03:14, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm confused, Hijiri...you seem surpised that SilkTork is in favor of the IBAN, yet you were the one who proposed it in the first place. Have you changed your mind or something? (Wait, maybe you have.) Erpert 03:20, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

@Erpert: Why would you think that? I wasn't the one to propose an IBAN (John Carter was first, then Catflap08, then Dennis Brown), I opposed an IBAN for the reasons given above until after the current thread started, and I'm still skeptical about an indefinite (read: permanent) IBAN, since punishing me by having a "permanent" ban on my record seems to be Catflap and John Carter's motivation (why else would Catflap propose an interaction ban with me specifically if he has no intention of interacting with anyone on-wiki anyway?). I know this isn't the actual meaning of "indefinite", which here should actually be "as long as necessary", but that's clearly not how some users are reading it.

@BMK: Technically you're right since if I alter an old edit by Catflap by accident AGF should protect me from accusations, but what if someone reverts such an edit and calls it an IBAN violation, I'm then effectively not allowed to revert back. This means that even if Catflap is retired I am still restricted by an IBAN while he is not (a de facto one-way IBAN).

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:49, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Oops, I mispoke. I meant to say that you were in favor of it in the first place. But just like all the other discussions about the issue, this is really going nowhere, so IBAN or not, this needs to end. Erpert 08:52, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

@Erpert: Hold on a sec, I didn't say I was against an IBAN, I just said that making it indefinite, given the fact that one of the subjects is retiring, seems more punitive than preventative. I agree this needs to end, hence my above agreement to the IBAN. Unlike Catflap, I actually want to get back to creating articles, which I was doing happily in accordance with SilkTork's advice until Catflap and John Carter decided to reignite this dispute on the editor retention talk page. (Seriously, check the dates: that's exactly what happened, and I don't appreciate people insinuating that it's my fault that it came to this.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:43, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Emesik vis-à-vis Syrian Civil War

The article source clearly states: DO NOT ADD ISRAEL. PER Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive215#User:DIREKTOR reported by User:FutureTrillionaire (Result: See below), ANYONE WHO ADDS ISRAEL WILL IMMEDIATELY BE BLOCKED. User:Emesik added Israel yesterday: . Please deal with appropriately. Nulla Taciti (talk) 01:37, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

That text was added to the template by a non-administrator and oversimplifies the discussion at the 3rr report. Someone who was not party to a discussion 2 years ago, making a change now, isn't likely to get instantly blocked for doing so. Also pinging @Black Kite: the admin who made the statement you are basing your request on. Monty₈₄₅ 02:16, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Did I provide a RS for that claim? In fact I provided two. Are they newer than the do not add Israel text? Yes, they are. Please put my changes back in. Otherwise it smells of blatant censorship. --Emesik (talk) 03:18, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Emesik you are completely aware of what a highly contentious and unproven claim this is, and you have been blocked once before for issues relating to this same subject matter. Nulla Taciti (talk) 04:37, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Unblock request of 68.56.230.233

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

68.56.230.233 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is requesting unblock >2 months into their 6 month block. Dreadstar blocked the user for 6 months for "disruptive editing" related to the Gamergate topic. The IP address made one edit to the talk page and was reverted and blocked about 15 minutes later. I don't personally see anything on there that justifies a 6 month block on sight; Dreadstar has since self-blocked and retired so is not available for input here. I'm willing to unblock, but wanted to bring it here in case there's something regarding this edit (and the GamerGate ruling as a whole) that I'm missing. Any other admin is free to take action if I don't first. only (talk) 10:53, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support unblock per above. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:54, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support unblock, seems very reasonable. Btw, I've removed User:Lugnuts indecent gravedancing. He can post a properly worded support if he likes. Bishonen | talk 17:20, 11 April 2015 (UTC).

If you have an issue Bishonen, then address it on my talkpage. Thanks. Lugnuts 17:23, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I have done, and I've removed your attack on this board yet again, Lugnuts. If you insert it a third time, or if you mess with my post again, you will be blocked. If you ask me to, I'll consider removing my mention of you in my post above. Bishonen | talk 18:01, 11 April 2015 (UTC).

• Support unblock per this. Lugnuts 18:05, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support unblock Nothing here that would justify a long term IP block. Monty₈₄₅ 17:25, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikihounding by sockpuppets and proxy IPs

I previously got wikihounded by an obvious group of sockpuppets. MelissaHebert created on 21 February 2015, PortugueseManofPeace created on 21 February 2015, Akafeatfausty created on 22 February 2015, Shazam puta created on 23 February 2015. This resulted in several ANI reports and an SPI, eventually three socks were indeffed on CU evidence. But the disruption lasted for months, especially because nothing was done about the ANIs that preceded the SPI.

Here we are again, see the ANI report I opened and the revenge one by the sock. It is obvious from the first ANI that the sockmaster had to repeatedly log in and out to create this iteration of the bizarre puppet show. His statement of "just forget to log in" is clearly untrue.

I edit in a very technical niche topic area and it seems there are not enough experienced editors around to enforce policy. More than 70% of the articles I edited have "fewer than 30 watchers". I am pretty much on my own dealing with the sock and proxy IP disruption. If we are to bring this campaign to drive me away to a halt, the obvious socks need to be swiftly dealt with. Letting this iteration again go on for who knows how long is only going to encourage the next one. Kristina451 (talk) 14:31, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) user:kristina451 is having edit war with many IPs that are not proxy. example here - and here . these are belong to Princeton University and University of Cambridge. also my IP is belong to my company in Japan and is not proxy. they are secure, you cannot even ping them and so cannot be guest or proxy network.

(Non-administrator comment) admin already notice this pattern and tell her stop edit war because she revert many edit. Mkb764920 (talk) 23:10, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I ask user:kristina451 nicely on her talk page why she always revert my edit. i also use article talk page to provide many refs to support my edit. she still revert and tell me use article talk page, which i did . She ignore discussing with me on talk page and go straight report me on admin noticeboard. if she is going ignore talk page why she put revert reason as "use talk page"??? she claim she is productive editor, but block log tells me not credible. Mkb764920 (talk) 23:10, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Permissions-en backlog at OTRS

There is currently a 4-month backlog for processing statements of permissions sent to permissions-en and volunteers are desperately needed. We're telling users who have done good work finding free images and obtaining permissions that they need to send in permission for the image. They dutifully do so, never hear back, the image gets deleted, and the user gets frustrated. Volunteers are desperately needed to help out. You don't have to be an admin to volunteer, although there are some times when an image has been deleted where an admin will need to restore it (if you are not an admin and are seeking to have an image restored because permission has come in, you can ask at WP:REFUND with the ticket ID). You don't even have to make a huge time commitment. If maybe 10 people would process a few images a week, the backlog would never get like this.

It really isn't that hard to process the permissions messages and there are template responses you can use for most of the common situations. If you are willing to volunteer, please do so at m:OTRS/Volunteering. Thank you, --B (talk) 14:52, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

The OTRS team has asked a few times on this noticeboard, but it seems that reviewing new accounts is a slow process. There are five users from en-wiki awaiting review as of 7 April (full disclosure: my application is included). Is there any process in place that would prioritize acceptance from high-need wikis? Nakon 04:19, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Something new: COI extortion

I have evidence (in the form of an OTRS ticket and a deleted article) of a new (to me at least) mode of paid for-profit editing that involves searching out a company or group, creating a viable article about it, and then contacting the company to extort money from them. If the money is not produced then the editor marks the article with {{g7}} and is promptly deleted. Because I have only one article and one known account with no other contributions, I'm wondering if this is a scenario where CU might be used to find more of them. I assume this has worked on occasion for them. But I'm not terribly familiar with the limits of how CU can be used. §FreeRangeFrog 17:36, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I can not answer the main question, but to me deleting an article with {{g7}} if the article demonstrates notability of the company is an absolute no, borderline vandalism. May be admins working on speedy deletion should be more careful.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:44, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I always look at the history of an article marked with G7 to make sure the creator was the one that placed the tag and there are no other major contributors. To me a G7, especially for a company or other less encyclopedic subject, is equivalent to honoring the request of someone who changed their mind for whatever reason. Maybe they're going to develop it further in a sandbox, maybe they decided the subject doesn't meet the inclusion guidelines, maybe they don't have time to work on it further, etc. I have no problem with those. And I would have honored this particular G7 just as the deleting admin did. Obviously it would have never crossed my mind that the article was part of an extortion attempt. §FreeRangeFrog 17:50, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

This sounds absolutely awful to me because often readers believe that articles are written by WikiMedia staff. They don't quite get the "everyone can edit" principle or maybe don't understand how it works in practice. I'm less concerned about one article than I am about companies believing this is Misplaced Pages's hard-ball way of doing business. This is especially unclear if the editor gives the impression that they have the power to get an article deleted. I think this needs to be handled aggressively because we don't want this editor(s) appearing as if they represent Misplaced Pages. Liz 20:08, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Agree and I'm open to suggestions because beyond CU I'm not sure how we can catch these. §FreeRangeFrog 20:12, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

We could just not allow G7 deletions on articles that are of reasonably good quality. Monty₈₄₅ 20:16, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Deletionist that I am, I've always looked at G7 as the most dubious of the speedies, and I've been known not to grant them if the reason for deletion appeared to be spite.—Kww(talk) 20:32, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Which is why the criterion says If requested in good faith..., having said that, perhaps the stock deletion message for G7 should state that the page can be restored by WP:REFUND. --kelapstick 21:16, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

That's why timing is important. I like to write articles offline and make them as fully formed as possible before putting them on-wiki. In the past, I've accidentally created some articles with just part of the content that I intended: they demonstrated notability, but I clicked the wrong button ("save" instead of "preview"), so I either request deletion or do it myself (I'm an admin) within a minute or two of publishing it. When a page is very new, we shouldn't question the G7: you're not trying to revoke licensing, extort money, or anything else. This is why I will routinely decline an author-placed G7 request for old pages, unless they have problems, e.g. the author G7-tagged a nonfree image instead of placing it in the deletion queue, or the author G7-tagged an article that's at AFD. Nyttend (talk) 04:13, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Reference Desks and Vandals

The Reference Desks are currently under attack by vandals. A few administrators, including User:Smalljim, are fighting the good fight and blocking the vandals. I would, first, like to thank the administrators who are blocking the vandals. I would, second, like to request any admins in the Pacific region to check on the Reference Desks when the United States and United Kingdom are asleep. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:08, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Could we just semiprotect them? Also, I'm not going to link to it, but there's a few boards that need some revdels. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:09, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

or maybe activate pending changes for a few hours? They'll eventually get bored. -- Luk 23:12, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree that, under the circumstances, semi-protection for 24 hours would be a good idea. The vandal is now using throw-away accounts rather than IPs, and semi-protection would work against those also. (The Reference Desks also have a problem with IP trolls. I wouldn't mind longer-term semi, but some editors think that it is important to leave the desks open to unregistered editors.) Robert McClenon (talk) 23:14, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

An hour or so of semi-prot may be a good idea. It's just one vandal, but I can't recall what time he usually gives up.  —SMALLJIM  23:30, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

A bunch of us jumped on it and took care of it. This is a regular, well-known troll, and this current instance of losing his shit has happened before and matches his standard pattern of behavior. --Jayron32 00:17, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Request to move a draft article into main space over an existing article

A request is made to replace/merge the existing article Battle of Buna–Gona with the article at Draft:Battle of Buna–Gona. The rewrite and proposed merge have been notified on the talk page of the current article without significant dissent. A request is aloso made to re-title the two 'order of battle' pages for consistency of formatting

Battle of Buna–Gona Japanese strength and order of battle

Battle of Buna–Gona – Allied forces order of battle

Proposed titles are:

Battle of Buna–Gona: Japanese strength and order of battle

Battle of Buna–Gona: Allied forces order of battle

Cinderella157 (talk) 02:01, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

• The process for this is through Misplaced Pages:Requested moves. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:16, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Administrative backlog