Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:55, 18 July 2013

• 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 25 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 23 days ago on 15 December 2024) voorts (talk/contributions) 00:55, 28 December 2024 (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 92 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 72 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)

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

(Initiated 62 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:Team Seas#Re: the ocean pollution additions

(Initiated 53 days ago on 15 November 2024) Clear consensus that the proposed edit (and its amended version) violate WP:SYNTH. However, the owning editor is engaging in sealioning behavior, repeatedly arguing against the consensus and dismissing others' rationale as not fitting his personal definition of synthesis; and is persistently assuming bad-faith, including opening an ANI accusing another editor of WP:STONEWALLING. When finally challenged to give a direct quote from the source that supports the proposed edit, it was dismissed with "I provided the source, read it yourself" and then further accused that editor with bad-faith. The discussion is being driven into a ground by an editor who does not (nor wish to) understand consensus and can't be satisfied with any opposing argument supported by Misplaced Pages policy or guidelines. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 22:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Israel#RfC

(Initiated 46 days ago on 22 November 2024) Legobot has removed the RFC notice. Can we please get an interdependent close. TarnishedPath 23:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Talk:Nikolai_Rimsky-Korsakov#RFC_on_Infobox_for_Nikolai_Rimsky-Korsakov

(Initiated 37 days ago on 2 December 2024) The last comment on this was on 24 December 2024 and Legobot has removed the RFC tag. An independent closer (preferably an admin) would be welcome. Many thanks - SchroCat (talk) 15:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

•  Done Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:25, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Deletion discussions

Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion/2024 November 27#File:The Musician (Erling Blöndal Bengtsson) by Ólöf Pálsdóttir.jpg

(Initiated 41 days ago on 27 November 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

•  Done Stifle (talk) 11:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 20#Category:Belarusian saints

(Initiated 19 days ago on 20 December 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:10, 30 December 2024 (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 105 days ago on 25 September 2024) Open for a while, requesting uninvolved closure. Andre🚐 22:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump#Proposal: Age and health concerns regarding Trump

(Initiated 84 days ago on 16 October 2024) Experienced closer requested. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:57, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Winter fuel payment abolition backlash#Merge proposal

(Initiated 71 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 62 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:Shiv Sena#Merge proposal

(Initiated 42 days ago on 27 November 2024) Discussion seems to have stopped. As the proposal is not uncontroversial, and I, as the initiator, am involved, I am requesting an uninvolved editor to close the discussion. Arnav Bhate (talk • contribs) 11:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Is the community free to restrict an admin's use of some but not all admin tools?

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

1. Is the community free to restrict an admin's use of some but not all admin tools?
2. If so, how? May this be done using the same process by which we typically decide user restrictions such as topic-bans, interaction bans, etc. (mostly by discussion at WP:AN or WP:ANI, sometimes accompanied by an RFC) or does the community need to establish a new process for this, or must constraining an admin's use of specific admin tools be left to ArbCom?

Some arbitrators have partially addressed these questions, but I'd like to hear views from others, and perhaps more from the below-quoted arbs too, if they wish.

Here Newyorkbrad says, "The Arbitration Committee has the authority, for good cause, to desysop an administrator. I can imagine circumstances in which an administrator has displayed poor judgment in one area, e.g. blocking, but is doing a good job elsewhere, such that I would prefer to restrict his or her use of blocking rather than to desysop outright. The fact that I don't recall a case where this was done suggests this is not a common scenario, but I don't see any reason to say a priori that it's not a remedy that could be voted where warranted."

Here Salvio Giuliano says, "...the community can restrict and sanction editors; it cannot, however, desysop administrators. This is an exception to the rule and, therefore, should be strictly construed. For that, in my opinion, the community may ban a sysop from using part of his toolset, provided this is not a way to surreptitiously desysop him – which means that a ban from using the "undelete" button is OK, but a ban from (un)deleting, (un)blocking and (un)protecting would not be acceptable. As it happens, it's something that has to be determined on a case-by-case basis."

Here Risker says, " I suggest that the community consider two courses of action: whether to initiate a discussion specifically about being restricted from editing any protected templates or starting a request for arbitration/desysop at the appropriate page."

Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:09, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I am of the opinion (and have said this long before I joined ArbCom) that the "community" (more accurately, a set of people who show up at ANI) does not have the authority to restrict the use of administrator tools involuntarily. NW (Talk) 14:33, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

On what is that based? What policy or WMF directive says that our freedom to restrain the behaviour of users extends only to editors; that admin behaviour may not be constrained by the community using the same processes that are adequate to block and ban editors? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:19, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I should say that this is my impression of current unwritten policy. We've been a project with administrators for 11-12 years now, and in that time, I do not think we have allowed an RFA to pass with restrictions, nor has any proposal to restrict an administrator from using their admin tools ever formally passed. That says something to me, that for better or for worse we have chosen to view the sysop toolset as one set that cannot be splintered apart by individual decisions of whichever dramaboarders happen to show up. You'll notice that even individual editors are very rarely sanctioned on enwiki because of ANI discussions, or if it is, it's almost always an editor who has previously been blocked or banned. Any action taken is often actually one administrator going ahead and then the noticeboards review the matter, not that the noticeboard comes to a conclusion and an admin implements it. This isn't the greatest argument in the world, I know. But I see some merit in the current system, as it allows an admin to take action that may or may not be unanimously supported without worrying about being pilloried (even worse than they already can be) by the editors who really hate him or her showing up (the same reason why standard admin recall procedures don't work that well). NW (Talk) 15:39, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be in the subsection below, then? ;-) I mean, just because we haven't done something before doesn't mean we can't. Or is it mandated by the WMF or the five pillars or somewhere else in policy that we must do things the way we always have. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:51, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Should we?

No, I don't think so - if they cannot be trusted with one tool then they should not be trusted with any. That's not to say an admin doing X should be immediately de-sysopped, but they should be trained and put through probation or something until they are back to scratch, and if still no good then we need to consider full de-sysopping. GiantSnowman 13:17, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I asked "May we?" So I've created a subsection for your answer to the question, "Should we?"

The present RfA process is incapable of thoroughly assessing in advance a candidate's competency in all domains of tool use, so it is inevitable that a number (most?) will turn out to be excellent and valuable in many areas of tool use, but less competent in others. Why should the community have to desysop an admin who's performing fine in most areas, just because they're having problems in one area? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:22, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

There's a vital difference between:

an admin not being very good at X, recognising that fact, and so choosing to not use any tools in that particular area.

and

an admin not being very good at X, not recognising that fact, and consequently mis-using/abusing the tools.

Which one of these scenarios is your hypothetical situation talking about? GiantSnowman 13:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Just the latter. Jimbo acknowledged his blocking of Bishonen was inappropriate and offered to put the block button aside for a year, and Hex agreed to do the same after the community made it clear he needed to rethink his use of the block button; but in cases where an admin doesn't recognise a problem, we may choose between restricting their use and a full desysop. See Risker pointing out those two options in the above quote. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:50, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

As I've repeatedly said, in general, I believe that when a plurality of remedies are all suitable to stop the disruption an editor is causing, only the least onerous one should be imposed, which means that when an admin is acting inappropriately only in a particular area or with a particular tool, there is nothing preventing the community from restricting him. I understand the objection that an admin who's not trusted to do x should not be trusted to be an admin tout court, but I disagree (the best solution would be to unbundle the sysop toolset, but, unfortunately, that won't happen any time soon): we have "technical" admins who do great things and are sorely needed and we also have admins who are great at doing repetitive tasks but who lack the people's skills required to deal with a person who is being troublesome but is neither a vandal nor another kind of malicious editor – and I don't see any reason why we should deprive ourselves of the good these admins can do to the encyclopaedia... Regarding the procedure to actually impose a sanction, I'd say that the current one governing sanctions on editors is adequate and see no reason to create a new process... Salvio 13:41, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

The community does have this power. I think it should be one of those things that a bureaucrat is required to judge consensus on, much like an RFA. The problem I have with this request is being aware of the context: Anthonyhcole has repeatedly indicated that he wants to restrict the blocking capability of a group of admins whose blocks he feels are disrespectful or insensitive to the plight of the "content creators", and I've been specifically identified as one of the admins he wishes to apply this new-found power to. I know Coren, Sandstein, and Fram are also on his hit-list. It would seem that the basic intent is a backdoor method of making admins afraid to make unpopular, but necessary, blocks. This makes me extremely leery of just having the discussions take place on ANI and having any admin that feels like he has found a rough consensus imposing the sanctions.—Kww(talk) 15:47, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Kww, I understand your concern. I hereby undertake never to initiate or support an attempt to restrict your Coren's, Sandstein's or Fram's use of specific admin tools. This isn't about you. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:08, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Bureaucrat closing seems reasonable to me. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:35, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Regarding my motives: I believe that if the community begins taking responsibility for guiding and modifying the behaviour of our admins in this way, to some degree the ugliness of RfA and the palpable fracture between the "admin corps" and "editors" will be ameliorated. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:56, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't actually believe that particular "palpable fracture" exists. We have a small but vocal group that believes that good content contributions should forgive all sins, and there is a fracture between them and the rest of the community.—Kww(talk) 17:26, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I know you don't see it, but there is a problem with the relationship between the editing and policing communities. If, as you say, a small group is complaining loudly about your (collective) behaviour - that's a problem, and community imposed behaviour modification on those admins who are a problem (but don't recognise it) will help. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:36, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Because, of course, all the editors involved are blameless ... —Kww(talk) 17:43, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

No. Of course not. That's why we need you. But you're not all blameless, either. And when an admin has a problem in one narrow area, we need more nuanced options than just de-sysop or do nothing. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:59, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Why not? We can siteban people and topic ban them, and that could include a community decision of "you will be subjected to an indefinite block if you don't stop using tool X". Admins are people too, and that means that they should be subject to the same standards as other people. Not sure that it's a good idea in this case, but saying "no we can't do that" is going too far. 2001:18E8:2:1020:971:A37B:CBDE:B32F (talk) 16:43, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I do not know whether "the community has this power". As it has never been exercised, I do not think it should be assumed that it has. To inaugurate it would require at least consensus at a CENT-advertised RFC, and a clear definition of what would be needed - e.g., discussion to remain open for a set minimum time, bureaucrat required to close. I would be against it, for two reasons:

• Theoretical: this is the case of "an admin not being very good at X, not recognising that fact, and consequently mis-using/abusing the tools." If, after the sort of discussion envisaged, the admin still will not accept that there is a problem, that to me would cast enough doubt on his judgement to make me unwilling to leave him with the other tools.
• Practical: the existing problem described in WP:Unblockable would become worse if any block of a popular user brought all his friends to ANI demanding a vote on whether the blocking admin should be deprived of the block button.

It is all very well Anthonyhcole promising that he will not use this against Fram Kww and the other three; others would not be bound by that promise, and a campaign to chip away at the limited number of admins willing to make difficult but necessary blocks would not be good for the project. JohnCD (talk) 18:05, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Salvio addressed your first point, above. Regarding your assumption that a mob of buddies that disapproves of one block will be able to deprive an admin of the block button, that strikes me as suspect. What I can foresee is a large number of editors getting sufficiently fed-up with a cowboy who too often blocks when equally or more effective but less-draconian options are available, and telling him/her to do something else for a while.

(For the record, I'm reassessing Fram in light of his recent good calls regarding Eric and Kiefer.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 18:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Administrators are treated differently from other users in one respect: we do not have a community desysop process. Repeated attempts to introduce one have failed, with two common reasons being that it could be easily abused by those with grudges and that it would deter admins from performing potentially controversial admin actions. Both problems would also apply to a process for restricting an admin's use of a particular tool. I wouldn't have a problem if ArbCom (which does have the authority to desysop) were to issue a remedy preventing an admin from using the block button. Hut 8.5 18:45, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I believe this is the crux of the question. We do not have a community desysop process (but should have) and if we did have one, it should be something along the lines of an "inverse RfA", and not based on an AN/I model. Until we have such a process, and as long as the powers wielded by an admin remain bundled, the community cannot, it seems to me, effectively unbundle them by forbidding use of specific powers. Perhaps it should be able to, but I don't believe it now has that capability. The community can, of course, use moral suasion to convince an admin to lay aside use of one of those powers for a time (per the examples above), but it cannot force an admin not to have that power. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

We cannot take the power from them - only the WMF via ArbCom has that gift - but we can force an admin not to use a power, or enforce restricted use. For instance, if an admin is habitually having their decorum-enforcement blocks overturned by the community, we could allow that admin to block only obvious vandals and confirmed socks. We can do whatever we believe is best for our mission - unless it's proscribed by the WMF. If you can explain why I'm wrong on that point, please do so in the first section of this thread. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

It is impossible to "force" someone to do something unless you have the means to back up the order. The community does not have that means in regards to admins, therefore any attempt to "force" an admin not to use one of their abilities is doomed to failure, and is ultimately an exercise in drama, not in regulating the project. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:55, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

If persuasion fails to stop an admin from misusing a tool, we can make them stop by threatening to block them or actually blocking them, just as we make editors respect a restriction with the threat of a block. Kww did it briefly a day or two ago. The question is, should we do that outside a perceived emergency? Should we impose longer restrictions for a perceived intractable problem via a community discussion and/or RfC, without review or endorsement by ArbCom? I've come round to the view that ArbCom review is necessary. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:30, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I've heard this assertion before from admins. In fact, it won't be known for sure if those with grudges will be able to abuse this process until we start using the process. Personally, I think it's highly unlikely. I think a well-moderated AN or ANI discussion is a pretty sound process, and as with any user behaviour discussion, we'll be looking for a pattern of behaviour, not just one or two reasonable errors. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 19:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Please point me towards this mythical "well-moderated AN or ANI discussion" ;) NW (Talk) 19:15, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I beg to differ. A discussion on one of these noticeboards surrounding a controversial admin action tends to devolve into a mess. You don't think this proposal will be used by those with grudges? This proposal itself was inspired by a grudge surrounding a block discussed further up this page. People sympathetic to that editor want to be able to punish the admin concerned. Giving them the power to do so isn't going to improve that situation. Sure, we won't know for sure if the procedure will be used in that way unless we enable it, but that's like saying you don't know for sure if shooting yourself in the foot will hurt unless you try it. Hut 8.5 19:28, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

NW, I should have said "well-behaved". AN discussions are a far more civilised affair than they were just a year ago; and they can be even more controlled and focussed if you, the habitues, decided to exercise more self-control, as you did twelve months ago. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Hut 8.5, AN/ANI discussions sometimes become a mess, but most often they just fizzle into a frustrated deadlock - for good reason: we're not willing to deprive ourselves of an otherwise good admin due to a shortcoming in one limited area. By the way, I don't see this step being taken very often. But we can do it, so we should when it's more appropriate than doing nothing or de-sysopping. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

The reason ANI discussions frequently end up that way is because they are essentially unmoderated interactions between large numbers of editors with strongly held opposing views. In the case of the unblockables problem mentioned above the problem is that such editors have a number of sympathisers who are prepared to agitate or make excuses on their behalf. I don't anticipate that the number of admins subject to such restrictions will be very large either, but that doesn't really help the situation, because the mere threat of such a sanction will be enough to deter admins from performing controversial admin actions, and because the number of proposed restrictions will be much larger than the number of enacted restrictions (controversial admin actions will have supporters as well as opponents). Hut 8.5 10:34, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I think I've addressed this below where I suggest the admin may appeal to ArbCom, who may lift or impose whatever restrictions they deem appropriate. Regarding "This proposal itself was inspired by a grudge surrounding a block discussed further up this page," I don't know what you're referring to there. I've been thinking out loud about this at WT:BLOCK, WT:AC/N and elsewhere with Kww, Newyorkbrad and others for six months. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:48, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Making people take these cases to ArbCom in the first place will largely prevent grudge actions, allowing an appeal to ArbCom afterwards won't. (Note this argument hasn't worked for community desysop proposals.) Regarding the other issue, you've evidently forgotten this thread from earlier this week, where you started talking about this proposal in a discussion about that very block. The reason this proposal is getting such attention now is because of that block. Hut 8.5 06:15, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I still don't know what you're talking about. Are you saying I'm bearing a grudge that motivates this proposal? If that's what you mean, I'd prefer that you strike the claim. But I'm not sure that's what you're saying. Please clarify. I was prompted to start this thread by a comment from Risker, quoted at the top of this thread, which has nothing to do with Eric's block or grudges. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:22, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not saying that you personally are motivated by a grudge. I am saying that this idea is attracting interest at the moment because of the block of Eric, and I am confidently predicting that people with grudges surrounding Eric would try to use this process to further them. Hut 8.5 15:53, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Ah. Thanks for clarifying. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:12, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• If the community were not allowed to sanction an admin in any way, including a topic ban (via using the tools or not using the tools) then we will have successfully created "supereditors" that are above policy. I find this offensive. While I don't expect sanctions to be common, to say that there are no remedies available is already inaccurate as we've seen admin block admin without getting santioned themselves. Whether this line is, however, is fuzzy. The community can't desysop admin, because policy specifically states this power is given to Arb only, but other remedies do not seem to be the exclusive domain of Arb, per policy. That said, the community is not likely to be kind to people who file trivial requests for sanctions either, nor should it be. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:10, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Dennis: The community can certainly sanction an admin in many way: admins can be topic banned, for instance, they can have interaction bans placed against then, their editing can be restricted in any way conceivable except in regard to any of the bundle of abilities which comes as part of the admin package. To remove one of those capabilities is to create a "sub-admin" status, which is not in the purview of the community. Only ArbCom & Jimbo have the explicit power to desysop, and I would say that that power includes the abiliy to limit an admin's capabilities. Otherwise the community could (in theory) skirt that exclusivity by removing all of an admin's power except one trivial one, say, the power to view deleted files, on the technicality that having left the admin with one small part of the bundle, the community did not actually "desysop" anyone -- whereas the reality is that that admin will have been effectively defanged.

    No, as long as the bundle remains unitary, admins get them when a bureaucrat certifies a successful RfA, and loses them when they either give them up or they get desysoped by ArbCom. Once there's a community-based desysoping process in place, things will be different, but that's the way the system in now set up. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:08, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

    • You haven't shown any policy that supports this. I can see why we are losing good admin every day. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 10:32, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
      • Dennis: It's a logical conclusion from ArbCom's explicit remit to desysop, which has not been extended to the community. Removing part of an admin's powers is a "mini-desysoping" which is not within the community's purview. At the this time, the creation of an admin is done by community consensus, certified by a bureaucrat, and desysoping is done by ArbCom. The policing of an admin as an editor is done by the community, but the policing of an admin as an admin can only be done by the entity which has the capability of backing up its policing with the force of policy, and that is ArbCom. If the comunity was to decide it had the authority to reduce an admin's powers, the case would immediately go to ArbCom, which is under no compunction to confirm the community's decision - they would decide the case on its merits. This being the case, it makes more sense to simply bring the case to ArbCom without the community step in between, since any decision the community makes is entirely toothless without ArbCom's support.

        BTW, I'm honestly confused by your final comment: in what what way does the community's inability to restrict specific parts of an admin's capabilities contribute to "losing good admins every day"? I share your distress at the recent loss of several high-quality admins, but I'm not seeing the connection. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:33, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• The community can restrict an admin's use of an admin tool, and block or ban them if the admin defies the community. Yes, the admin can appeal against a long-term restriction to ArbCom. No, the community process is not therefore a waste of time because cases with high community support, including support from respected peers, will hopefully not be appealed. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:11, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• You assert that the community has this power, but you've shown no policy basis for this assertion, whereas I have shown a policy rationale for it not having this power - and hoping that such a community action wouldn't immediately go to ArbCom is mothing more than wishful thinking - it would probably go there even before the discussion had concluded. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:04, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• Some would go immediately to ArbCom, but what's wrong with that? ArbCom expects the community to carefully examine issues before they are taken to ArbCom, and the consensus from an AN discussion would tell ArbCom what the desired outcome from that discussion was.

  There is no policy supporting your claim that the community may not do this. You have an argument though; viz.: "Otherwise the community could (in theory) skirt by removing all of an admin's power except one trivial one, say, the power to view deleted files, on the technicality that having left the admin with one small part of the bundle, the community did not actually "desysop" anyone -- whereas the reality is that that admin will have been effectively defanged." Salvio explicitly addressed that in the quote at the top of this thread. De facto desysop wouldn't be tolerated by anyone, especially the admin concerned. A case approaching that degree of restriction would go to ArbCom before any resolution is reached at AN.

  Nothing in policy and no directive from WMF prevents us from doing this, and it would give the community (including other admins - many of whom give up adminning for the want of a simple community-based remedy such as this) a direct means of modifying the behaviour of an admin in one or two areas, without necessarily having to trouble ArbCom. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:50, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• Anthony, my feeling is that you want this so badly that you are not taking proper notice of the arguments that have been presented against your position. As you implicitly admit, you have no policy to support your position, and you're ignoring the rather obvious argument that the only entity which had explicitly been given the task of policing admin behavior (as oppose to the editorial behavior of admins) is ArbCom, and since ArbCom was given the task of policing admins, and the community was not, the community cannot usurp what is in ArbCom's purview simply because it wants to. If you want this that badly, you'll need to change policy to create a community-based desysoping process, and you can't do that through an AN thread. Once the community has the capability of desysoping (which it does not now have, but should), then restricting admin's admin-related behavior is trivial, because it has behind it the threat of desysoping. Until that change, this proposal will amount to nothing, especially considering that there's no consensus even here for it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Cheers. It's a little early for assessing consensus.

I certainly don't want this so badly that I'll ignore good argument. Earlier in this discussion I readily conceded admin restraint would be better left to ArbCom, when that seemed to be where the better argument was pointing. I again modified my view when it occurred to me that the existing right to request ArbCom scrutiny would provide enough protection against grudge actions. So, I'm more than willing to be persuaded by good argument, and I assure you I'm reading very carefully. And the "this" that I want isn't any specific process, just a more functional society here.

We don't need a policy or a WMF directive telling us we can constrain admin behaviour. You've got it the wrong way round. If you want to prevent the community from doing that, you need to find a policy or WMF directive telling us we can't. If you can't do that but still want to prevent this from happening, argue convincingly that we shouldn't. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:14, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• I am not wrong when I say that "Misplaced Pages belongs to the community", but at the same time there is a particular hierarchy here (not in terms of importance but in terms of proven credibility and policies) and involving the community in this scenario would mean breaking that hierarchy and as such the pyramid with the strong base of credibility. Would you give a rollback or reviewer right to a newbie with 5 edits? why would you want to give the right to judge admin actions to any one else other than Arbcom? I have seen some ANI discussions which end up one admin suggesting other admin to not edit a certain article or to drop the stick while interacting with a certain user, these remain suggestions from an admin as given to another editor. For admin tools involving the general community through arbcom should be enough and admins should have enough common sense to not use tools in areas which they don't feel they have expertise in. If not then the community in the first place has not done a good job in RFA either so how do you trust them here?  A m i t  ❤  04:32, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• My opinion is that where we (currently and traditionally) appoint admins based on our trust that they will not abuse any of their tools or judgement, if they fail in any one of these tasks, then that trust has been violated. I naturally believe that no sanctions should be applied without warnings, and that desysoping from the use of all tools rather than a ban from certain sysop areas should be the way to go if there is no improvement, but only as the last resort. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:27, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• Individual users turning up on ANI and other noticeboards contribute to the process of the project, however they are not entirely representative of the community. The Arbitration Committee is the only proper entity that should have the mandate to desysop administrators or alternatively place partial restrictions on the use of their tools. Accusations made against administrators should be taken seriously when there is prima facie evidence of abuse. Only when this evidence is properly contextualized and analyzed by elected arbitrators, who are also among the most experienced users on the project, can we expect to have a semblance of propriety towards the entire process. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 06:28, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Well put, Nick. Leaving such actions to AN discussion would be less bureaucratic and more efficient in most cases, and not add to the AC's work load, which is why I've been considering it. Above, Kww suggested discussions about restricting an admin's tool use should be closed by a bureaucrat, to protect against self-selection by a biased closer. But this would only increase the likelihood of an honest assessment of consensus.

Can the consensus view of whoever turns up at AN be relied on, though? I've been persuaded by your succinct argument, on top of those put above, that AN is too prone to mob rule and chance, and for that reason we should refer such cases to the AC for at least ratification. That is, though the community could take this on (and if/when we instigate a robust and reliable de-sysop process we may take this on), for now, we should leave the decision to the Arbitration Committee.

I'm very concerned not to add an undue burden to the AC, though, so I hope any such cases will be very well prepared before such a request is made. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:08, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• Yes. There are even admins that have been justly and repeatedly blocked after becoming admins. I think that is clear evidence that admins are not immune to sanctions from other editors and/or by consensus. I don't see how restricting only part of their activity with such sanctions would be a problem. In fact, it would be obviously beneficial. If someone does not have enough clue to participate well in some area of this vast project, and they cannot reign in themselves, it's a good cause for the community to do that, with ArbCom as the last step, not the first. Admin actions also span a large domain. Topic-banning an admin is a good way of retaining their useful contributions while preventing the problematic ones; that applies to normal editorial contributions and to admin actions equally well. Someone not using his real name (talk) 09:14, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• Hopefully, if a good case is made at AN, and enough of their peers urge them to, an admin with intractable problems in a limited area will agree to restricting their tool use accordingly. If they don't agree, then based on all of the arguments above I don't think we should enforce the restrictions with the threat of a block or community ban. If the admin won't voluntarily modify their tool use in line with consensus, ArbCom can be asked to look at it. A number of Arbs above have indicated a readiness to consider the option of specific admin-tool restrictions, where appropriate. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:30, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Interesting reading, Thanks Anthony. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:42, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Alan. I'm still wavering here. I'm starting to think the community might keep both options open:

1. Take the case to ArbCom if the consensus is uncertain or suspect or
2. Impose restrictions if a bureaucrat finds a strong clear consensus; and the restricted admin can immediately appeal to ArbCom - who may lift or impose whatever sanctions they deem appropriate.

I hope the right to appeal to ArbCom addresses the concerns expressed by NW, JohnCD, Hut 8.5 and Nick about grudge actions. I'd appreciate their (and others') thoughts on that. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:14, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I am still too concerned to support this. The RfC process is better suited for this than AN would be, as it would attract a better cross-section of the community than AN. I don't dispute that the community has the authority to set up a well-managed process to restrict or desysop an administrator; I just am skeptical that AN/ANI has the authority or that a situation would arise that such a fairly-arrived-at consensus would come up that it wouldn't be just as easy for the Arbitration Committee to handle the matter by motion. NW (Talk) 12:45, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes a situation can be made clear enough in a careful discussion at a noticeboard. This recent case was resolved by the admin agreeing to put aside the block button for a year; but if he hadn't been persuaded by his peers, I think the evidence was clear enough for a reasonably safe community decision to require him to do so. But I would expect an unclear or complicated case at AN involving an admin's behaviour to go to RfC, just as such things do when they involve an editor's behaviour that requires a lot of teasing apart. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:14, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

NW, I don't have a problem if Arb decides to take a sanctions discussion that is at WP:AN and moves it to Arb, since Admin issues are obviously something Arb was setup to do, but that shouldn't limit the community from initiating them, nor adjudicating them in cases where Arb isn't involved. I wouldn't support desysoping, but there have been cases where I would support interaction bans, for instance. Arb isn't needed for those cases, and of course, the admin can appeal to Arb or Arb can vacate that decision. I don't see any policy reason for saying that basic problems, even if they involve the bit, can't be dealt with here, at the lowest level. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 10:52, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but interaction bans are fundamentally different from say, preventing an administrator from using page protection. I see your point Anthony that it is possible for a discussion to lead to a fair conclusion, but that to me seems like the exception rather than the norm. I would be far more comfortable with the situation if a special process were set up that requires more than the participation of ANI regulars and those who have a particular animus towards this particular administrator (past discussions). NW (Talk) 15:44, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Only the clear "snow" cases would end with a community-imposed sanction out of an AN discussion. Complicated cases will spin off to an RfC/U (and then back to AN or on to ArbCom), and disputed cases will end up at ArbCom. Community-imposed restrictions will only work where all concerned think it is appropriate. So, yes, it would only be effective in those exceptional cases.

I don't think there is much to worry about here. But I concede, we really won't know until someone tries it. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:18, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• Yes. All editors are subject to community restrictions - topic bans, interaction bans, process bans - on activities that they are technically able to do. An admin simply has permissions that increases their technical permission, but all behaviour is still subject to restriction by community consensus. If the community decides that an admin needs to stay away from a particular process, but should retain other administrative permissions, then that's what should happen. If they violate that ban, their actions should be reverted ala WP:CSD-G5, and be subject to escalating blocks. VanIsaac_{WS Vex} 22:03, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
• No. I think that admins should be responsible in responding to friendly suggestions that they were not good at one thing or another and would be best to avoid those areas for now. There are a lot of tools in the admin toolkit, and I do not think it wise to try to specifically separate them. If you are responsible in having the toolkit you are responsible to recognizing your own strengths and weaknesses as well. If not, the best option is desysop. Apteva (talk) 06:42, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I've invited input to this discussion at the village pump and WT:RFA. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:47, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• Yes it is easy to say that any admin who cannot be trusted with one tool should not be trusted with any of them. In fact, I don't disagree with that statement. However, it creates a problem because it seems to communicate that problematic admins must be either ignored or desysopped. There has to be some middle ground, especially because desysopping is not easy to do. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  19:32, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• In principle, yes; saying "we trust you to do anything except X" can be implemented whether X is unilateral page-moves, writing about Palestine, or deleting pages. There is no technical means for doing so, but there is no technical means to implement almost any other kind of restriction. In practice, though, I cannot imagine many circumstances in which something had got to arbcom without there being an unpleasant enough situation that the safer course of action was to desysop... Andrew Gray (talk) 23:33, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Beyond My Ken, involved in this discussion with a clear bias toward the question, having made more posts to the thread than anyone bit me, the OP, thought it was appropriate for him to close this discussion, and leave his own thoroughly biased closing statement. I was not proposing a policy change, as his self-serving closing statement asserted. Since the answer to my main question (may we?) is clear, I agree that this thread can now be closed. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:04, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

For the record, here is the "biased and self-serving" closing statement, which no one but the Anthonyhcole seemed unhappy with:

NAC: Even though I have commented in this thread, I am closing it because (1) There is no admin action being requested; the proposal would have been better presented on WP:VPP rather then here; and (2) Despite the OP's opinion that "it's a little early for judging consensus", it's clear that the proposal has not gained any traction, even after the OP advertised it on WP:VPM and WT:RFA.

The OP is advised to present proposals for changes in policy to WP:VPP, since that is not the purpose of WP:AN.

Since this is a NAC, and since I have participated in the discussion, I've no objection if someone -- other than the OP -- wishes to re-open the discussion, but please be aware that it's been almost two days since any new comment has been added. The discussion appears to me to have died. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:12, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Obviously, I could be wrong, but that seems to me to be a straight-forward, accurate and honest assessment of the situation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:46, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Request for sanction removal

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

Normally editors do not need to make requests before making edits, and as a copy editor and content creator, the sanctions which I am under are having severe consequences limiting my ability to make contributions to Misplaced Pages. The origin of the sanctions were what I thought of as a perfectly reasonable request to spell thinks correctly, and remove any guideline limitations that indicated that Misplaced Pages should make up spellings instead of using what reliable sources use. Yes I was vociferous in my request, but I would ask anyone who sees an error in Misplaced Pages to be twice as vociferous if needed. I have fastidiously adhered to the sanctions for six months, resulting in the loss of many edits that no one would ever complain about not being made, due to those sanctions. I therefore humbly request that the sanctions all be removed so that I can go on with making contributions. Apteva (talk) 03:15, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Let me paraphrase, and then please tell me if I understood you rightly. "Please remove all bans and other sanctions that currently apply to me, because..."? Or do you mean something else? Nyttend (talk) 03:23, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Here are the sanctions: Restricted to one account and "Apteva is topic banned indefinitely from modifying or discussing the use of dashes, hyphens, or similar types of punctuation, broadly construed, including but not limited to at the manual of style and any requested move discussion, and from advocating against the MOS being applicable to article titles." Both are preventing necessary edits. I am working with a keyboard that is missing a key, when it comes to making edits. It is never appropriate to topic ban someone because you disagree with a proposal they make. We do not topic ban because of the position someone takes, only if they are unable to make positive contributions to the subject. Apteva (talk) 03:26, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Apteva, I think it would be useful to your appeal if you would comment more specifically about your impressions regarding the complaints about your behaviour at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Apteva, and then User:Seraphimblade's close at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive244#Admin attention to an RFC/U, please, User:Gatoclass's close at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive134#Dicklyon, Spartaz's close at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive798#Dicklyon, and why your block within the past two months was made more restrictive by User:Black Kite and then by User:Beeblebrox. What is different now? Paul Erik 03:55, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

What is different is I know enough to shut up and edit. Apteva (talk) 04:29, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm concerned that you still seem to be justifying and rationalizing your previous actions. Describing the situation that led to previous sanctions "a perfectly reasonable request" raises red flags that you actually intend to continue the same behavior. Blocks and bans are prophylactic, and this indicates that yours may still be necessary. VanIsaac_{WS Vex} 04:54, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Not a chance. The behavior was pursuing the issue ad nauseum. While I am willing to defend the practice, I am not willing to annoy anyone myself. Which would any of us prefer, an encyclopedia which is correct, or one that is incorrect because various editors are bullied against pointing out errors? I am not interested in the drama. I can point out errors, but beyond that it is out of my control. The funny thing about Mexican American War is that over 90% of reliable sources use "Mexican War", rendering the entire discussion of punctuation moot. Apteva (talk) 05:49, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

As you clearly demonstrate in this very thread, you have not learned to "shut up and edit." Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:33, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• (ec) An appeal against a sanction generally links to the discussion where the sanction was imposed. It is also advisable to not say "I was correct" (a perfectly reasonable request to spell things correctly) in the appeal because unless the intention is to re-argue the whole case, an appeal should work on the premise that the community was not incompetent. Johnuniq (talk) 03:56, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Only commenting on the "restricted to one account" bit. Looks like the issue with your Delphi234 account was that you were judged to be using it improperly, apparently circumventing previous sanctions or something like that. There's nothing better than a declared alternative account for legitimate uses "security", "maintenance", and "testing and training"; if the Delphi userpage contained a prominent link to your Apteva userpage and vice versa, you obviously wouldn't be using it improperly, and if people thought you'd remove it and start socking again, you could demonstrate good faith by asking that the userpage be fully protected — you can't edit your own userpage when it's fully protected, so people would be able to see that you weren't planning to obscure the connection betweenthte accounts. I see no reason to prohibit that specific use, but I have no comment on further one-account restrictions or on the restrictions unrelated to sockpuppetry. Nyttend (talk) 04:00, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

The issue with my primary account has never been with improperly using alternate accounts, but was to monitor my observance of the topic ban, and was never necessary, as I would never normally make any of that sort of edit from that account anyway. I have never socked. Ever. Using an alternative account appropriately is not socking. Socking is completely different. We allow alternative accounts because they are necessary, and I wish to return to appropriately doing so. Apteva (talk) 04:29, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose per block log. --Rschen7754 04:05, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • The last block was for complaining about incivility. Is that wrong? It was clearly an inappropriate block because it was solely punitive and not preventative at all. I had already agreed not to use ANI/AE to complain abut incivility. Apteva (talk) 04:29, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• Except, you seemed to be using frivolous civility complaints as a weapon against opponents of your views on the MOS. This BATTLEGROUND approach to the subject has generated a lot of disruption and your failure to realize the problem with that is why you were blocked. I do not adhere to the idea that an editor needs to admit wrongdoing to be freed of editing restrictions, but I do think requesting a lifting of all your sanctions just a few weeks after coming off a long block for your treatment of opponents in the underlying dispute is a bit premature.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:32, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• It is important to allow all points of view and I have never targeted anyone who has a view either in agreement with me or opposed to me. I am not here to be treated with incivility, and it is only incivility that I have objected to, not someone's point of view. On that everyone is welcome to state their point of view, and consensus prevails. I am bringing the appeal now because I want no doubt about commenting at the RM discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Cut and paste move repair holding pen, which I probably could anyway, but with the sanctions removed I would not have to wonder. And no, I am not the IP who did comment. Apteva (talk) 05:43, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• I detest to see a legitimate editor under sanctions and was initially inclined to support, but changed the mind on discovering of WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive798 #Dicklyon about two-months old. Although there are some problems with the guy mentioned, one should never attack a fellow editor on a noticeboard with a wall of text consisting almost entirely of irrelevant linguistic stuff and external links instead of diffs and ]s. Sanctions shall remain until the editor in question learned more constructive ways of defending himself and his point. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 06:55, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Already have. As mentioned, I am waiting for the civility enforcement RfC to make a recommendation and will adhere to whatever it says. I am planning on helping move the RfC forward but have not had the time to do so yet. It has not had any edits since February, as I recall. Apteva (talk) 07:33, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

—Neotarf (talk) 10:09, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose I confess that I have not made a particular study of this, but it's my impression that although Apteva has insisted that it is necessary for him to use an alternate identity to edit certain articles or subjects, he has never made it clear exactly why that is, simply asserting it as a fact, without acceptable explanation. I cannot see why this would be, especially if the secondary ID is linked to his main ID (as sockpuppetry policy requires). I'm afraid that my AGF has been streteched, thinned out, and broken by Apteva's behavior, and I can no longer believe much of what he says. For these reasons, I oppose removing the sanctions on his editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:20, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • That is him or her, he or she, his or her, thank you. Alternate accounts are not required to be linked and can not be linked where privacy issues are concerned and they are not linked. You are blocking my primary account, which makes no sense. Block this account and there are many articles that I would not be able to edit. Neither block benefits Misplaced Pages. I have at all times maintained a high level of integrity and am a valuable contributor. I adhere to all guidelines and policies. If any one has a problem with my edits, I have a talk page and welcome criticism. Statements such as "I can no longer believe much of what " are patently ludicrous, and have zero credence. Point to one diff out of 10,000 edits that was not in good faith, and that was an example of not being believable. For example, I was not unblocked because an admin did not believe me when I said that I was not going to bring ANI actions for civility. Well I am unblocked now, and have I? No. Would I if I had been unblocked? No. This lack of faith is completely, 100% undeserved. One of our rules is to ignore all rules, and one of my options is to simply ignore the sanctions but I have not done that and that is a measure of my integrity. It should be patently obvious that I can not maintain privacy and explain why I am doing that and how, because I could only do so by giving up that very privacy that I am protecting. I edit solely under the condition of anonymity. Apteva (talk) 15:40, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• I'm all for removing sanctions from users who've shown that they're no longer necessary. However, considering that in your very request to lift sanctions you've repeated the same problematic views that got you topic-banned in the first place, I'm not sure this would be a great idea. Furthermore, your comment that "Yes I was vociferous in my request, but I would ask anyone who sees an error in Misplaced Pages to be twice as vociferous if needed" actually contradicts the WP:ICANTHEARYOU portion of the disruptive editing guideline:

  In some cases, editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has decided that moving on to other topics would be more productive. Such behavior is disruptive to Misplaced Pages. Believing that you have a valid point does not confer upon you the right to act as though your point must be accepted by the community when you have been told that it is not accepted.

  Could you please answer the following questions: 1) Do you understand why your continued advocacy of your positions on dashes, etc., was considered disruptive? 2) If your sanctions are lifted, do you plan on returning to said advocacy? 3) Could you please give some examples of dash-modifying edits you'd like to make?

I'll say right here that I don't see myself supporting a lifting of the sanctions, but I could possibly support allowing you to make uncontroversial changes to dashes in articles... but that depends on your answer to the third question. — PublicAmpers& 17:06, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

1. Yes, even though it was not. Airports and comets are not spelled with dashes, only hyphens. I can propose that, but decisions are made by consensus.
2. No, I am considering that there is a moratorium on dashes and hyphens until next year. I am hopeful that Misplaced Pages will start spelling things the way everyone else does, and that does not seem to be too much to ask.
3. Often people use hyphens, dashes, and minus signs incorrectly, and as a matter of discussing proposed name changes and as a matter of copy-editing it is helpful to correct errors when they are seen. It is horribly draconian to not be able to make simple corrections. During the moratorium I will not be proposing name changes, but should be expected to contribute input to any that have been proposed.

Sorry, I should've been more clear in my third question: Could you please show some sample edits that you'd make? Five to ten should suffice. — PublicAmpers& 20:47, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Changing a minus sign to a dash or hyphen, removing spaces around an mdash, adding or removing spaces around ndashes, changing hyphens to dashes in date ranges, such as 1819–1922. None are controversial. I do a lot of RCP so I see everything imaginable. We allow minus signs for negative numbers, but I would never change any to or from that, as that is not important, but when a minus sign is used for a dash or a hyphen that is significant and does need to be corrected. Apteva (talk) 21:15, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Apteva has made it clear enough that they believe they are smarter than everyone else, constantly lecturing others even when it is abundantly clear consensus does favor their position. No valid reason is given for ifting these sanctions. The supposed privacy concern is nonsense since it is known what the pother account is. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:26, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • The valid reason is to allow valuable edits that might not otherwise be made for some time, if ever. I have been watching one error that I would have fixed and it still has not been fixed. There are many others. I have never used intelligence as a criteria for editing, and recognize that all of us do our best to contribute. It is often possible to learn private details about editors but that falls into the category of outing and is not permitted. We simply do not tell editors not to fix things. The bottom line is there are no positive benefits from the sanctions and serious consequences, almost all of them unintended. Removing them would clearly benefit the project. Apteva (talk) 20:25, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

There is no outing concern here, that is a lie. I don't recall the name of your other account off the top of my head but I recall it being specifically mentioned, by you I might add in previous discussions of these sanctions. Your apparent compulsive need to argue endlessly with everyone is plain for anyone to see and does you no credit. This is part of why you have been having such trouble and it's sad that your ego apparently makes you unable to see that you are your own worst enemy. If you could just get over yourself and shut up about the sanctions for a while (and maybe consider the possibility that you have been wrong once or twice in your time here) you probably could get them lifted. As long as you continue to act like this you will continue moving further, not closer, from unrestricted editing. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:03, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

So, it took me about one minute to find this. There we go. Your other account is User:Delphi234, and it is blocked per the near unanimous conensus in this discussion] some six months ago. So, you can just cut the crap about there being a privacy issue at play here. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:10, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. Apteva is both interested and involved in the project. I knew nothing about Apteva a couple months ago, and I thought an enforcement boomerang would be too much. The follow on trip to ANI suggests a continuing problem. Since then I've seen not only continued good but also continued trouble. Recently there were issues at Talk:Go (game)#Move? (see edit history). Apteva has clear and consistent views and vigorously defends them, but those views don't always align with the community. Despite Apteva's claims, I doubt Apteva understands the reasons why the restrictions were imposed: it is not the belief but rather the behavior. He has raised the understanding and unreasonable restriction arguments before, but they have not flown. (See Bwilkins decline at User_talk:Apteva/Archive_7#Next steps; Bwilkins doubts Apteva's prior claims to understanding.) I want things to go right for Apteva, but there needs more uneventful history. Glrx (talk) 22:02, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Once again, that is he or she, please. So the result is I continue editing with one hand tied behind my back and can not contribute as much as Misplaced Pages needs? What is the point of that? Who benefits from that? No one. Who suffers? Everyone reading Misplaced Pages, and readers out number editors by 1000:1. The edit that I am watching is on a page that is viewed 3500 times a day, 100,000 times a month. As the months tick away, that is one, two, three, four, five, six hundred thousand times that viewers have been presented with erroneous information. Is that what everyone here really wants? For that to continue for another six months? Does anyone really understand how ludicrous this is? Apteva (talk) 22:13, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Actually, unless you specify what gender you prefer to be addressed as, it's up to the other editor what form to use in a situation where gender isn't known. Your attempt to force other editors to bend to your preferences is typical of your attitude and your behavior throughout Misplaced Pages, and is indicative of the root cause of your sanctions. You clearly have no plan to change your behavior one whit which is why your sanctions should not be lifted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:30, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. as a fellow grammar nazi, on the basis of uncorrected spelling errors in Apteva's request.--R.S. Peale (talk) 04:53, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
  • That spelling error was introduced deliberately as an example of a spelling error. Apteva (talk) 06:13, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposal 2

Apteva is topic banned for six months from proposing or discussing the use of dashes, hyphens, or similar types of punctuation in article titles. All other sanctions are vacated.

What this would do is give me my keyboard back and I would not bring up or discuss moving Mexican American War or other such titles for the balance of the sanctions. By making it a definite time, it is trivial in six months to extend it if needed, but it would not require bringing the same appeal here again if no problems occurred. It would limit the false information from being seen a million times, limiting it to only 635,000 times (add 3,500 for each day it takes to implement this sanction amendment). Since the sanctions have already been in effect for six months, it is effectively a one year sanction. Apteva (talk) 23:12, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Question Solar power and wind power both fall under the realm of renewable energy. Delphi editted wind and Apteva editted solar, which seems to be the cause for the topic overlap that the single-account restriction was based on. Is it possible, if the sanction is lifted, to create an alternate account that edits strictly renewable energy topics and then use Apteva or Delphi to edit everything else on the 'pedia? Ishdarian 00:05, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

No, the single account restriction was to see if I was violating the topic ban, and solely for that reason. It is not needed, and has severe consequences to the encyclopedia. Apteva (talk) 03:43, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

It is totally unreasonable to believe that the banning of a single editor, no matter how productive he is, has "severe consequences to the encyclopedia", and that fact the you honestly don't seem to understand this is part of the reason why your sanctions haven't a chance in a million of being removed as a result of this thread. It is also the reason why I doubt you will follow my prescription below, as you seem to be incapable of seeing your place in the big scheme of things. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:19, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Humility. Look into it. There have not been "severe consequences" anywhere but in your imagination. You have failed again and again to provide a logical reason why you need separate accounts for editing certain topics, and you did not keep the two accounts you had properly seperated. That is why you were limited to one account, and your inability to comprehend the problem and insistence that it was not needed and wrong are indicitave of the other issues you have had as an editor here. We're all wrong sometimes, it's the abikity to learn from ones mistakes that helps us grow, on WP and in real life. If instead you rationalize your mistakes and blame others for them, there can be no growth. But if you already believe you are infallible I guess that isn't a very compelling point. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:25, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

All of us are equally important to the project. Without us it would not exist. I certainly recognize my faults and always encourage anyone to point out anything they see me do that is inappropriate, on my talk page so that I can be aware of what was done, and take corrective action. Sure I have a healthy ego, but there is no crime in that as long as I keep it to myself, and do not use it to belittle anyone. I obviously recognize that I could be wrong on absolutely everything. That is why we discuss things, so that we can learn what is right and what is wrong. Apteva (talk) 06:03, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Apteva, you make some hard to believe statements. You say above that the restriction to one account has severe consequences to the encyclopedia. What are the severe consequences? Why can you not make the edits you need to make to avert those consequences from your Apteva account? You also say that readers are suffering from you not being able to make an edit on an article that is viewed 100,000 times a month. What is the problem with this article that readers are suffering? GB fan 11:20, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposal 3

Apteva's previous restrictions are to remain in force indefinitely. Apteva is further topic banned from proposing the removal of those sanctions for a period of six months from the day this discussion is closed, and is limited to one appeal every six months after that. Any violation of this topic ban in any area of Misplaced Pages will lead to a block. If the ban is repeatedly violated each block will be sharply escalated from the previous one. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:26, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. It is abundantly clear at this point that Apteva will continue to attempt to circumvent the strong consensus that placed and still supports their topic bans so long as we indulge them, so let's not indulge this foolishness any further. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:26, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose- I dislike this business of systematically depriving people of all their avenues of appeal, just for appealing. Reyk _YO! 23:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

If the appeals (this is not the first one by the way) had ever presented logical, compelling reasons to lift the sanctions I would agree with you. They have not, so this is all just a waste of time and energy. ArCom regularly places such restrictions as an alternative to just indef blocking users who make nuisance appeals like this one, just trying their luck over and over without showing any improvement or even an understanding of why the sanctions were imposed in the first place. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:42, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support The Editor appears to not realise what the issue was which led to the original block. This measure will leave a sufficient amount of time such that the editor can get some perspective on the issue before filing another request. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:36, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support essentially per Beeblebrox's multiple comments, even if some are more strongly worded than I would have put it. Apteva demonstrates even in this appeal the type of problematic interaction style that is the root of previous sanctions and blocks. There seems to be a lack of self-awareness about how the style comes across to others. When Apteva disagrees with someone, it's not a difference of opinion in Apteva's mind; it's that Apetva is right and the other person is wrong, and that's that. True to form, he/she reverts an admin in order to unclose the discussion and notes that no opinions in the above discussion were "factually based". Apteva is...persistent. Paul Erik 01:03, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

That is soooo typical of the hard-headed foolishness I have come to expect from Apteva. I'm beginning to be more inclined to initiate a ban discussion, you can't work with someone who is incapable of admitting they ever have been or ever could be mistaken... Beeblebrox (talk) 02:04, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support - This editor's constant harping on his sanctions (instead of simply editing constructively and responsibly and allowing the removal of his sanction to come about naturally) is disruptive. As someone mentioned above, he's his own worst enemy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:44, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

The focus needs to be on how we can work on improving Misplaced Pages, not on how we can keep someone from contributing. This proposal is moot because I am already restricted to appealing the sanctions once every six months (from 11:43 January 6 UTC, so the first appeal could have been done almost two weeks ago). However, as the sanctions are not needed, and are hurting Misplaced Pages, it would be better for everyone to set an expiration date instead of everyone having to go through the same exercise again in January. Apteva (talk) 03:39, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

As an observation, we have probably millions of occasional editors (having done one edit), and right now about 3200 to 3500 every month who make over 100 edits, myself one of those. What can I do to become an editor just like every other, with no restrictions, just like everyone else? Apteva (talk) 04:05, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit constructively and humbly, stop being convinced that you're always right and everyone else is wrong and that you are somehow necessary for the survival of Misplaced Pages, stop arguing with everyone about everything, admit when you're wrong, work toward compromise instead of getting your own way and stop trying to get your sanctions lifted. (paradoxically, this is probably the best way to get your sanctions removed). In other words, go about your business, don't worry about the subjects you've been sanctioned for, contribute productively to the encycylopedia, and understand what WP:CONSENSUS really means. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:12, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Done. But bear in mind that I have created over 100 articles, and helped bring multiple articles to GA status (and helped with FA ones). Sure some times things get done by someone else, but sometimes that is not the case. I have as I said been monitoring an error that I would fix in 2 seconds if I could, that now has been viewed 635,000 times without being corrected. Anyone else could correct it, but no one has. Anyone could click on the reference supplied and said hey that is not what the article says and fixed it, but no one has. Why is that? Apteva (talk) 04:28, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

You say "Done", but your very answer is in direct contradiction to my advice. Don't you see that? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:04, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

As a collaborative project the contributions of all of us are equally valuable. No contributor can be said to be more valuable than another, because without all of us the encyclopedia would not exist. I have been restricting myself to the areas that I can work on, for six months now with no deviation. I just want the restrictions to end, or at least have a definite time when the sanctions will go away. Apteva (talk) 05:35, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

And that, right there, is the fundamental error in your thinking. Some contributors are inherently more valuable than others. Specifically, contributors who work collegially with others and seek to find consensus are infinitely more valuable to this project than even the most productive who act like they are right and everyone else is wrong, and refuse to abide by collaborative editing process. VanIsaac_{WS Vex} 07:08, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Remind me to create an infobox saying this editor is one that is infinitely more valuable than others. Or one that says, this editor is the 700th most valuable editor, and is infinitely more valuable than the 5000th most valuable editor, who in turn is infinitely more valuable than the 50000th most valuable editor who made one edit that no one else noticed and helped the readability of one of our articles. No, in a collaborative project, we do not assign value to our participants, and treat everyone with equal respect, whether they are Jimbo or an IP editor makes no difference whatsoever. Yes some people contribute more than others, and some are more difficult to deal with than others, but that never affects the respect that they deserve. No one is paid here, and it is only by our good will that any of us make even one edit. By thinking that some of us are "infinitely more valuable than others" strongly discourages anyone from wanting to participate at all. Only by recognizing that all of us are equal, from the IP editor who makes one edit, to the 100,000 and million edit contributors, all of us completely and entirely equal, do we encourage participation and welcome editors. Apteva (talk) 15:30, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support @Apteva: There is no requirement to stop believing that you are correct and everyone else is wrong, but you must stop talking about it. It is a disgrace that so much time and energy has been squandered in arguing over Apteva's two accounts and Apteva's views on article titles. Just stop. If making another appeal in six months, please outline how changing the restrictions would benefit the encyclopedia (for example, how would discussing dashes help). Johnuniq (talk) 07:17, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
• As stated before, this proposal is moot because it does not add anything to the sanctions that are already in place. We allow alternative accounts because they are necessary, and I have just as much of a right to that requirement as everyone else. But anyone thinking that an error that could have, and would have, been corrected in January, and has since been seen 635,000 times is acceptable because the only editor who knows about the error has too much integrity to create an alternative account, and fix it in 2 seconds really needs to re-examine why we are here. Six months from now, if it is still there, it will have been viewed over a million times. No where is it acceptable to allow known errors to be viewed that many times. Apteva (talk) 15:30, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I keep wondering if at some point you will notice that literally nobody has your back on any of these issues and nobody agrees with your reasoning. I mean, the above comment is just a load of nonsense in every single aspect. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:25, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Apteva, if the error you keep referring to relates to whether a mark of punctuation should be a hyphen or an en-dash or a minus sign or the like, you should permanently ignore it; whether or not it is an error, it is infinitely less important than you think it is. If the error is substantive, as you suggest above, and it is not related to a topic from which you are topic-banned, the only reasonable course is for you to fix the error before you post anything else on this page. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:43, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Government of Gibraltar decides which articles should be written and when

Most of you are probably aware of the Gibraltarpedia situation (mainly from September 2012). Many assurances were given that no promotion was involved, and that it is just a group of interested editors trying to increase our coverage of notable subjects in and around Gibraltar without any further reasons or motives.

When looking at Template:Did you know nominations/Devil's Gap Footpath, I noticed that besides some other problems, discussed at that nomination page and at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Devil's Gap Footpath, there was something more serious going on. In short:

• In March and April 2013, the footpath is refurbished by the Government of Gibraltar
• Information panels are placed carrying QRcodes as a link to Misplaced Pages, even though no article exists on the footpath
• 7 July 2013, 23.02: Tommy Finlayson, a government employee of Gibraltar (whose Misplaced Pages article is co-written by Gibmetal77) adds five files concerning the path to Commons, e.g. this one with the QRcodes in question
• 18 minutes later; Gibmetal77 starts creating the article here
• On 11 July, he nominates it for DYK, where it gets approved by Prioryman with ao the comment "I don't think there is any credible COI or promotional concern about this article".
• Because another reviewer expressed concerns about the article, Prioryman raised it at WT:DYK, which I noticed and reacted on. While he had no problems with my participation in a previous GobraltarPedia DYK review (Template:Did you know nominations/Fortifications of Gibraltar), he now reacts quite differently at WT:DYK#Third Fourth opinion requested: "given your history of relentless opposition to Gibraltar-related DYKs – which comes through in your comments on the review – I don't think you're the best person to review this nomination." (which is rather ironic coming from Prioryman: apparently he is neutral enough to review Gibraltarpedia-articles positively, but I'm only welcome when I approve a nomination, not when I reject one).
• When I raised my concerns about the timeline given above, and the apparent issue that it is the Government of Gibraltar (or the Board of Tourism) which decides which roads and footpaths of Gibraltar should get articles, at the AfD, Prioryman decided that instead of addressing the issue, the more prodictive solution would be to use personal attacks: "How about you stop lying, Fram?".

Can some people take a look at both the timeline and possible COI and promotion issues, and the personal attacks please? Fram (talk) 08:50, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• AFD in question. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:04, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks, but it was included in the third sentence of my statement (the one starting with "when looking at"). Fram (talk) 09:13, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Oh, I missed that. Strucken. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:17, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I've found this discussion because I'm currently watchlisting Prioryman's talk page because of matters unrelated to this discussion. I'm unaware of the previous discussions involving Gibraltar. On that basis:

• You make a reasonable case that Gibmetal77 has been acting in concert with whoever is responsible for this footpath to create the article. It's not immediately clear to me, however, why you think that this might be in violation of WP:COI or other conduct rules, or why it warrants a discussion among administrators here.
• The incivility by Prioryman is problematic, but regretfully nothing unusual by Misplaced Pages's current standards. As an isolated incident it is probably not actionable under current practices.
• I'm puzzled that articles about obscure footpaths can generate such controversy, and recommend all involved from withdrawing from what seems at first glance to be a storm in a teacup, or a rather unhelpful continuation of old grudges on both parts.
• Administrative action related to Gibraltar topics can be requested at WP:AE, per WP:AC/DS.  Sandstein  10:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • wrt your first point; It seems to me that when we have a project that is set up in conjunction with a city's board of tourism to promote that city, and when that city then creates wikilinked QR codes on certain topics that don't even have a Misplaced Pages article yet (and may not warrant one), and when there are some editors here who are part of that project and are willing to create the requested articles, that COI and the misuse of Misplaced Pages for promotional goals (whether effective or not) are quite clear. This is a conduct issue, and a continuation (degradation?) of an ongoing issue. It is unclear where I hsould have posted this, none of the village pumps seems really qualified. I was not aware that we have Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gibraltar and its discretionary sanctions; while I'm not the right person to take any administrative action (like warning other users about these sanctions), it is good to know that it exists and I may take this up there. Fram (talk) 11:35, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

The entire premise of this thread is a lie - the government of Gibraltar is not telling anyone what articles to write, nor is anyone else. One of the QR codes on the information panels is to my Tunnels of Gibraltar article, which was in preparation at the time the panels were printed. Nobody asked me to write the article - I wrote it as a spin-off of another article and let people know about it, as I wanted some feedback on it. The local heritage and conservation groups responsible for the panels evidently felt it was worth a QRcode. The photographer is a local who has nothing to do with the tourist board, and obviously Gibmetal77 is not a government employee. So the basic premise of this entire thread is wholly false and is yet another sad example of the assumed bad faith and conspiracy theorising that Fram has been perpetrating for the last year. It's bullshit and bunkum, and it should stop now - it's the exact opposite of how a Wikipedian should behave. Prioryman (talk) 13:13, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

This section is not about Tunnels of Gibraltar, but about Devil's Gap Footpath. I have not made any comments about your article or why it was written. Your comments and conclusion are thus not relevant. Whether Finlayson has anything to do with the tourist board or not is not clear, his brother Clive Finlayson used to be Managing Director of the Gibraltar Tourism Agency though. And the reason to renovate the footpath was "to turn the footpath to a nice tourist attraction." This is also the opinion of the government of Gibraltar, the renovation was one of the "improvements to the visitor attractions" This, coupled with the reason Gibraltarpedia was supported by Gibraltar and the timing of this article, are at least sufficient to raise some eyebrows. Fram (talk) 13:42, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Devil's Gap Footpath is one of a group of four articles that are QRcoded on the information panels (Tunnels of Gibraltar being another). The footpath is in a nature reserve on government-owned land (which I gather most of Gibraltar is) and the panels were, as I understand it, produced by two local non-governmental groups. Your comments clearly indicate that you are relying on nothing more than unverified suspicion. Because the brother of a person of the same name as the photographer (but not the same person!) used to be employed by the tourist board it doesn't mean that the panels have anything to do with the tourist board - that's little more than suspicion by association (can't even call it guilt by association!). Nor, obviously, does it mean that anyone in government "decided" that this article should be written, which is the whole utterly false basis of this thread. Let me put it simply: that claim is an unmitigated lie and you are being disruptive by propagating it. Prioryman (talk) 14:04, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:NPA. Any alternative and believable explanation for the timeline of this? Do they randomly put up QRcodes for non-existent articles, or is there some interaction with editors here as to what articles will be created? On what basis is the choice then made? What happens when an article with a QRcode gets deleted? How does the collaboration between Gibraltar's official organisations and Gibraltarpedia editors go? Who has paid for these panels? I see a lot of handwaving and accusations from your part, but no actual explanations of what happened. Fram (talk) 14:24, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Fram, you are approaching this from a conspiracy theory mindset of having a pre-determined conclusion and working backwards from that to cherry-pick any datapoints that you - wrongly - think support your theory. I'm not Gibmetal77 (who's travelling, so can't respond here) so I can't speak for him but my own understanding is that he suggested to the Gibraltar Heritage Trust, a local charity - not the Gibraltar government - that they should add QR codes to the panels they were printing up. The articles linked from the QR codes were Devil's Gap Battery (started by User:Toromedia on 22 September 2012), Devil's Gap Road (Dr. Blofeld, 13 May 2013), Tunnels of Gibraltar (started by myself on 7 June in my user space) and Devil's Gap Footpath (started by Gibmetal77 on 8 July). The panels were printed some time in mid-June, I think. I had already told Gibmetal77 some time previously that I intended to cover the tunnels as a spinoff from my earlier Fortifications of Gibraltar article - needless to say nobody told me to write it. So in other words, the addition of the QR codes to the panels was done at the suggestion of a Wikipedian. Furthermore, three of the four linked articles, by four different editors, had already been started up to 9 months previously, by four different editors. Your claim that User:Toromedia is Tommy Finlayson is also false (it's a different person of the same name). So your claim that "the Government of Gibraltar decides which articles should be written and when" is plainly completely false because the Gibraltar government had nothing whatsoever to do with the articles. You never had any factual basis to suggest that they did and your assumptions are completely incorrect. Prioryman (talk) 18:47, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I really don't care why you or anyone else wrote any of those other articles. Promising to write articles on non notable subjects so that panels with QR codes for them can be created beforehand is a not much better scenario (and leads to comments in the AFD like "have a redirect so the QRpedia code remains useful"...). It remains clear that you as a a group work together with the government and affiliated organisations to create articles promoting non notable tourist "attractions" and try your hardest to get them on the front page, reviewing and approving each other's work without much concern for basic policies and guidelines, and abusing editors who disagree with these practices. Fram (talk) 07:15, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Wrong again. I had no involvement in creating the article, nor was I asked to review it - I simply spotted it and reviewed it as the QPQ needed for one of my own nominations. When will you apologise for getting the facts so cataclysmically wrong? Or even acknowledge that your claims were wrong? I'm getting the feeling you don't actually care about factual accuracy. Prioryman (talk) 07:42, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

"I had no involvement in creating the article" Where did I say you had? And you don't need to be asked to review and approve Gibraltarpedia articles, it comes naturally to you, never mind DYK rules and Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. I see no reason to apologise for anything here. That the Tommy Finlayson, a COI and copyright violating editor who also edited the Tommy Finlayson article, turns out to probably be another Tommy Finlayson from the same city with the same interests, is hardly "cataclysmically wrong". You haven't shown any other error, you made claims which can't be verified and which are hard to reconcile with the known facts. Not the first time of course. You should stay far away from any Gibraltarpedia articles on DYK if you want to keep any credibility and semblance of neutrality. Fram (talk) 08:18, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not particularly inclined to continue this discussion, as it's obvious that you're simply making things up rather than relying on facts. There's no point discussing matters of fact with someone who prefers to invent their own facts rather than respecting reality. Prioryman (talk) 16:41, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• Those are some very not notable people by Misplaced Pages's standards, those Finlaysons. Nice of us to give them an outlet for their resumes. Clive Finlayson doesn't have a single reliable secondary source, unless it's that one single page from this book. Note how all his publications are nicely linked, and how we make him "an authority on Neanderthals" based on this website--I'm puzzled that anyone ever accepted that as a reliable source for a BLP in an encyclopedia. Drmies (talk) 17:23, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
• Those blue links were to Amazon. They're gone now. Apparently the entire family, including Clive Finlayson's wife, is notable by our standards. Drmies (talk) 17:32, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages editors aren't always the best at establishing notability when writing an article. Clive Finlayson is most definitely notable, though his article does not do a good job of reflecting this fact. I am not so sure the others are notable, though.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:47, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• I suppose the Beeb wouldn't have asked him to write something if he weren't at least marginally notable. The surprise is that this came through the DYK Quality Control Filter, which is otherwise just lighting up with false positives. Drmies (talk) 18:02, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• Looking at a normal Google search, Google News search and Google Books search, I'm not seeing anything even remotely passing WP:GNG for either of the Finlayson brothers. Accordingly I've prodded both. — Scott • talk 18:27, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• I can only guess that you don't know how to use Google, since there are plenty of returns, especially for Clive. I've unprodded them since they're both clearly notable. JSTOR alone would make any AfD a foregone conclusion, so don't even bother with that. Prioryman (talk) 18:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• Have you even read WP:GNG at all? — Scott • talk 21:09, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, obviously. And I know perfectly well that prodding the biographies of internationally noted, widely cited, decorated experts in their respective fields is a pretty silly thing to do when GNG is borne in mind. Prioryman (talk) 21:16, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• Clive is probably just about notable. His brother, borderline. His wife, though - not in the slightest. Black Kite (talk) 21:20, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• I am plenty familiar with our notability guidelines and it seems clear the younger Finlayson is quite notable. As I said, I can not speak for the elder Finlayson or the younger Finlayson's wife. The latter two you can address as you wish, but it would not be correct to claim that Clive Finlayson is non-notable. His bio could do with some re-tooling to move away from primary sources and make better use of the abundance of secondary sources out there, but that does not warrant deletion.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:21, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• You know, the really stupid thing about this particular part of the discussion is that comes out of Fram's assertion that User:Toromedia, the contributor of the photos on Devil's Gap Footpath, is Tommy Finlayson. He's not - he's a different individual of the same name. I don't think any of the Finlaysons being talked about here have ever edited on Misplaced Pages, at least to my knowledge. Prioryman (talk) 21:30, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

The interresting thing is, that a minimum bit of research will show the distinction between the two Tommies. :-) Agathoclea (talk) 19:31, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

The bottom line here is, whatever the genesis of the article, there is no way that it is appropriate for Prioryman to be reviewing Gibraltar-related DYKs. Let someone who isn't closely assosciated with the Gibraltarpedia project do it next time. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:09, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

You may not be aware, but the current restrictions specifically allow for one of the two reviewers to be Gibraltarpedia-related. As the other reviewer was not, that condition was met. I have previously rejected and pulled Gibraltar-related nominations for not meeting standards, so I can hardly be accused of rubber-stamping. On the other hand I think it would be a very good idea for Fram to avoid any further involvement with these DYKs as the litany of false claims that he's posted above makes it very clear that his bias is so strong that he's incapable of making fact-based judgments on this issue. Prioryman (talk) 05:31, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Tumandokkangcabatuan unblock request

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

This user has a request for unblock that has been waiting for almost a day and a half. Can an admin review please. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:44, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I believe admins have been looking at this request but the user didn't give a satisfactory answer to Ed's response, "You'll need to persuade the next admin reviewer that your block is no longer necessary. A good beginning would be to apologize for revert warring, and promise not to keep reverting in the future when it is clear that people don't agree with you."

If I reviewed that I would decline on that basis. With only a few hours on the block remaining, it won't make much difference.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:52, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

As someone who has been blocked I can categorically say that having a block removed even five minutes early can under some circumstances make a huge difference. Apteva (talk) 20:38, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

FACTUAL evidence should be used not PERSONALIZED translation

Several subjective users have attempted to manipulate the article on the "Shooting of Trayvon Martin" to suit personal ideologies. Misplaced Pages's policies serve to maintain neutrality and OBJECTIVITY rather than personal "prose". Credible sources should be used as references , such as the New York Times, rather than individual leaving "notes" .. What authority do they have to make such authoritative "notes"? Users like Arzel and Froglich violate the rule of objectivity and follow "personal dissertation" . Misplaced Pages is for objectivity not a BLOG for personal verdict. Cmo910 (talk) 16:47, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• Yes. This is best taken up on the article's talk page--with specifics, rather than with generalized statements. Drmies (talk) 17:10, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
• Or WP:BLPN Apteva (talk) 20:41, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipediocracy and outing

The bottom line is that no admin is going to "do" anything about this, and neither is arbcom. These issues were in front of them just last week and they rejected the case. Whether the person who closed this was involved or not will not change that result. Sorry folks, but nothing is going to come of this. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:04, 17 July 2013 (UTC) This isn't an appropriate place to discuss privacy issues - the Arbitration Committee is the appropriate body to deal with this, as Sandstein rightly states. Prioryman (talk) 07:30, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Closed to avoid further Streisand Effect and privacy violations - see hatting note above. Prioryman (talk) 07:35, 17 July 2013 (UTC) The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Wikipediocracy, amongst its other issues, has now become a platform for repeated massive breaches of WP:OUTING. When identified WP editors (or to be fair, Wikipediocracy editors claiming to be that Misplaced Pages editor) post articles deliberately attacking other WP editors then things have gone too far. We would (rightly!) never permit these sorts of outright attack within the WMF space. I believe that such attacks off-wiki are incompatible with continuing to edit at WP, much as per WP:NLT. Thoughts? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:34, 17 July 2013 (UTC) Some editors have clearly identified themselves, under usernames equivalent to those on Misplaced Pages but on other sites. Why should that constitute outing? And besides, you're using a white supremacist editor as an example for your claim of "massive outing"? Are you serious? By "outing" such a character I think that Wikipediocracy is doing a public service more than anything else. Wer900 • talk 00:37, 17 July 2013 (UTC) My reading of WP:OUTING and WP:NPA has so far failed to locate the section that says, "Unless they deserve it, then it's OK". WP has problems and there's certainly scope for outside channels that discuss this. However Wikipediocracy has got so far out of hand that it's now even worse than the sins it complains of. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:48, 17 July 2013 (UTC) I think this doxing is getting out of hand. They've been doing it for almost two years now, but this is just getting really bad, really fast. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:52, 17 July 2013 (UTC) Given that Misplaced Pages has no control over external websites, and given that (as Andy Dingley points out) we can't even be sure that someone posting on Wikipediocracy is who they claim to be, there seems to me to be precisely f***-all that can be done about it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:56, 17 July 2013 (UTC) I concur, but also note that providing links to off wiki outing is not appropriate, and I recommend deleting the above example links before this section is archived. I recognize that it is pretty hard to talk about something without explaining what one is talking about with a link. Apteva (talk) 01:18, 17 July 2013 (UTC) We have a pretty good idea of which not-yet-banned editors are promoting this pro-Scientology material on Misplaced Pages. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:00, 17 July 2013 (UTC) Um, I thought this was about Wikipediocracy, not Scientology? I very much doubt that even the most optimistic of admins would expect to exert any control over the latter... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:07, 17 July 2013 (UTC) So the difference is what? The interests have been declared. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:14, 17 July 2013 (UTC) There is no credible claim that those identifying themselves on Wikipediocracy are not who they claim to be. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:03, 17 July 2013 (UTC) Mine may be a minority opinion, and I haven't visited Wikipediocracy and don't think that I want to do so. However, I think that, unlike Encyclopedia Dramatica, Wikipediocracy is not meant well and is not meant to be humorous, but is either malicious, or, at best, has only the excuse of middle-school humor. My own opinion is that anyone posting a link to Wikipediocracy that refers to a specific Wikipedian should be blocked, and should then explain that he wasn't outing anyone. I told you it was a minority opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:09, 17 July 2013 (UTC) Can we stop with the persistent arguments over Wikipediocracy? All that's happening is (1) a Streisand effect and (2) annoyance to those who of us who really don't care. I'm tempted to close this as a "wrong venue" with instructions to complain to Wikipediocracy, because we have no more control over them or their participants than we do over the New Zealand Herald and its writers. Nyttend (talk) 01:12, 17 July 2013 (UTC) We have just the same issue with WP:NLT: WP's response to which is that such off-wiki actions are incompatible with continuing to edit here. The same approach could be applied to Wikipediocracy. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:15, 17 July 2013 (UTC) If you are proposing a policy change, this isn't the place to do it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:21, 17 July 2013 (UTC) Robert's comment is exactly like the sort of nonsense one sees on the letters page of the Daily Mail. (I'm guessing, I don't actually read that newspaper and don't think that I want to do so.) -- Hillbillyholiday 02:18, 17 July 2013 (UTC) Andy left me a message alerting me of this discussion, so I assume it has to do with my most recent blog post on Wikipediocracy. If it helps, I can confirm that I wrote that blog post. I can also confirm that it contains the real life name of a long-term WP user and exposes them as a self-declared member of the Ku Klux Klan. I sent ArbCom a message about this yesterday to let them know it might come up on-wiki. ANy questions? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:37, 17 July 2013 (UTC) Yes: How on Earth aren't you banned yet? — PinkAmpers& 02:05, 17 July 2013 (UTC) For what? Carrite (talk) 02:10, 17 July 2013 (UTC) Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Misplaced Pages. ~ WP:OUTING (emphasis added) — PinkAmpers& 02:15, 17 July 2013 (UTC) You will note, of course, if you read beyond the line that you quote and emphasize, that this is a policy with respect to so-called "outing" on Misplaced Pages. Off site is off site. Carrite (talk) 04:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC) Where has DC "outed" this character on WP? Should Andy Dingley be blocked for his opening statement which links to the off-site "outing"? (diff) -- Hillbillyholiday 02:26, 17 July 2013 (UTC) I can also confirm that it contains the real life name of a long-term WP user and exposes them as a self-declared member of the Ku Klux Klan. You can make the case that simply saying "it contains the real life name" isn't explicitly onwiki outing, but saying that someone's in the KKK most definitely is. — PinkAmpers& 02:40, 17 July 2013 (UTC) Oh, and, as to Andy... it's not block-worthy because it is at worst a good-faith mistake, and at best it's not even a violation of policy. (We have Misplaced Pages:Linking to external harassment, but that's a guideline, and it doesn't even categorically prohibit links like Andy's.) Personally, I think that the endless side discussions about what links you can include in the Wikipediocracy discussions ultimately just distract from the main issue. But, hey, if you wanna redact the links, I won't stop you. — PinkAmpers& 02:45, 17 July 2013 (UTC) ..saying that someone's in the KKK most definitely is. Sorry but no, it most definitely isn't. -- Hillbillyholiday 02:51, 17 July 2013 (UTC) Everybody needs to be sure they read this piece on Wikipediocracy before they offer opinions. I'd make it easy to do with a link, but I'm sure some cowboy would block me for it. All the same: read first, opine second. Carrite (talk) 02:10, 17 July 2013 (UTC) There is no consensus on what can be done in response to off-site outing, but it has been consistently proven that trying to deal with it on-site serves only to draw attention to the act of outing itself (Streisand effect, as has been mentioned earlier this thread). If the people who are made upset by the presence of outing on another site would simply avoid talking about it in public fora, then the only people to find the outing would be the those who knew where it was to begin with. This may sound like a really shitty answer to the problem (which again, editors can't agree is a problem), but it may be the best answer you'll ever get. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:17, 17 July 2013 (UTC) Well, Streisand Effect is precisely what DC is looking for when he engages in his habit of doxing. He's trolling, and we respond, unfortunately. Resolute 03:28, 17 July 2013 (UTC) Trolling? What a cretinous statement! Who started this thread? Heaven forbid that anyone would actually do anything useful round here. -- Hillbillyholiday 03:37, 17 July 2013 (UTC) Those anxious to rally to Mr. Buffalo's defense might be interested in THIS edit summary from July 14: "Undid revision 564203455 by Ryulong thanks snotty, and watch your edit summaries, asshole" or maybe THIS one: "Undid revision 564203729 by Ryulong you did put a summary "Check your damn talk page"-fuck off and stay fucked off." Nice. Carrite (talk) 04:31, 17 July 2013 (UTC) Come on Tim, this is not about Kintetsubuffalo and you know it. Outing (hypothetical, according maybe to our guidelines, whatever) is OK if it concerns a bad person? Drmies (talk) 05:35, 17 July 2013 (UTC) Everything seems to be verifiable. Without this kind of work, Qworty and Little green rosetta would still be editors in good standing. I think reprehensible off-wiki behaviour of any kind may be justification for banning from the project, but DC's behaviour in this case is far from reprehensible, and may be considered a public service. There is no harm in the world knowing that a teacher of children has those publicly-declared interests. I hadn't noticed that first blog post until you opened this thread - as I'm sure many hadn't - so thank you for publicising and directly linking to it on one of Misplaced Pages's most watched pages, Andy. But doing so breaches at least the spirit of our outing policy, so I've removed both links to the blog. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:10, 17 July 2013 (UTC) I think it's very sensible to redact the links, and I would appeal to others not to repost them, here or elsewhere. Enough damage has been done already - let's not add to it. Prioryman (talk) 06:44, 17 July 2013 (UTC) While the offsite article at issue does make for interesting reading, it roughly amounts to "User X has the real name of Y and is probably a really bad person, including a racist and a pedophile". This raises the question of what to do with the poster and the subject of the post. As to the latter, I am not aware that we have a policy allowing or requiring us to sanction users for reprehensible offwiki behavior. Intuitively I think that it should be grounds for sanctions because it reflects very badly on Misplaced Pages (I can see the tabloid headlines: "the encyclopedia written by pedophiles!"). But any attempt to implement this would clash violently with our current privacy rules as well as the adage of us being "an encyclopedia that everyone can edit". The best suggestion I can come up with at this juncture is to first develop consensus on whether we want to be able to sanction users for reprehensible offwiki behavior, and if yes, develop a rules-based, privacy-respecting process (probably by and via ArbCom) for implementing it. Then it can be applied to the instant case. As to the poster, our policy WP:OUTING#Off-wiki harassment is to my surprise very clear: "As is the case with on-wiki harassment, off-wiki harassment can be grounds for blocking, and in extreme cases, banning. Off-wiki privacy violations shall be dealt with particularly severely." In addition, "in extreme cases, such as legal threats, threats of violence, or outing, protective blocks may be employed without prior warnings." On that basis, it appears to me that there is clear consensus based in policy that offwiki outing is grounds for onwiki sanctions up to and including a ban. As to what to do now, the outing policy instructs: "In serious cases or where privacy and off-wiki aspects are an issue (e.g., where private personal information is a part of the issue, or on-wiki issues spread to email and 'real world' harassment, or similar), you can contact the Arbitration Committee or the volunteer response team by email, in confidence". Accordingly, I believe that the ball is in the allegedly outed user's court; they can submit the case to the Arbitration Committee for a private hearing. The Committee is in a position to consider any possible exculpatory arguments, such as the "public service" argument. I do not believe that an onwiki discussion is helpful in cases such as this where offwiki, private information is relevant; it only tends to compound the privacy issues. In the meantime, nobody should further complicate the problem by continuing to post potentially private material or links to such material onwiki.  Sandstein  06:54, 17 July 2013 (UTC) For God's sake Sandstein, the editor the post is about identified his interests and himself, by name, MULTIPLE TIMES on wiki. Andreas JN466 07:11, 17 July 2013 (UTC) If that is so, then we may not be facing a question of outing, but a question of whether the post otherwise constitutes harassment. In either case ArbCom is best qualified to handle this.  Sandstein  07:23, 17 July 2013 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Prioryman and Sandstein are the last persons who should be closing this, particularly since Sandstein just admitted that the Arbcom request was flawed. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:25, 17 July 2013 (UTC) Prioryman isn't even an administrator... I guess NAC flies at AN, learn something new every day... Carrite (talk) 22:23, 17 July 2013 (UTC) Yes, I think considering the history with Wikipediocracy, Prioryman is WP:INVOLVED when it comes to matters concerning wikipediocracy (I'm not commenting on the merits of the case, I am merely noting a long running feud exists). NAC is actually fine at AN and ANI, but being involved isn't. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:33, 17 July 2013 (UTC) I'm am a little puzzled by this. We appear to have affirmative evidence that someone is a card carrying racist bigot, and probable possible paedophile. Framing the exposure of a Klan member as possible harassment is madness. Outing policy is meant to protect regular editors, not racists and paedophiles. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:33, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• Note that I've now filed an arbitration request. — PinkAmpers& 03:02, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Babita Sharma

A user (Jimthing (talk · contribs)) is trying to add unsourced information in the page, that made the real person send an E-mail to info-en (that's why I'm here) the user is edit warring too. please take care of it ASAP, (As a sysop and crat in another project) I suggest protect the page and send the user a warning not to add unsourced or poorly sourced materials in WP:BLPs (request of real person exists in Ticket#2013071710007773) :)Ladsgroup 13:39, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I have just responded to a similar OTRS e-mail from the subject. I have warned Jimthing (talk · contribs) and also reported this to WP:BLPN.--ukexpat (talk) 15:13, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Might be better to delete it. As it stands, the citations do not support WP:GNG as both of them appear to be primary sources. One is her talent management agency and the other is an upcoming summit where she is a speaker.--v/r - TP 15:40, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Another admin issue

Request to community-ban User:Damorbel from all articles and talk pages on thermodynamics.

Damorbel (talk · contribs) has a personal fixation that temperature is the average kinetic energy of a molecule -- even if there's just one molecule; and that heat is a measure of the molecular kinetic energy of a substance, rather the standard textbook definition that heat can only consistently be defined as energy in the process of being transferred into or out of a system.

He has filled up archive after archive, in particular at Talk:Heat but also elsewhere, endlessly pushing these views despite a raft of editors attempts to straighten him out, in exactly the way that we're not supposed to do, per the Arbcom cases on Speed of Light and Monty Hall problem.

He's at it again now, at Talk:Heat, and it has gone past the point of being disruptive.

I raised this at WT:PHYSICS for general discussion in December 2012 (archive here), where there was general agreement that Damorbel's views were not well conceived, and his continued returning to them was not helpful.

At that time I held back from the ultimate step and bringing it here. But it's now started up again, on and on, just as before, and it's time to say: Enough is enough. This has gone on for too long, taken too much energy from too many people, and it needs to finish. Jheald (talk) 21:36, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Request and discussion advised to WT:PHYSICS, Talk:Heat and User talk:Damorbel. Jheald (talk) 21:51, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Administrative backlog