Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:16, 18 August 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 29 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 26 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 95 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 75 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 65 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 57 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 49 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)

Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RFC_Science-Based_Medicine

(Initiated 34 days ago on 7 December 2024) slowed for a while Bluethricecreamman (talk) 06:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

 Done Seraphimblade 10:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Wicked (2024 film)#RfC on whether credited name or common name should be used

(Initiated 31 days ago on 11 December 2024) Participation mostly slowed, should have an independent close. Happily888 (talk) 10:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Deletion discussions

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

(Initiated 22 days ago on 20 December 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Arab migrations to the Levant#Merger Proposal

(Initiated 108 days ago on 25 September 2024) Open for a while, requesting uninvolved closure. Andre🚐 22:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Winter fuel payment abolition backlash#Merge proposal

(Initiated 74 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 65 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 45 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)

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

(Initiated 14 days ago on 27 December 2024) Proposed merge discussion originally opened on 30 May 2024, closed on 27 October 2024, and reopened on 27 December 2024 following the closure being overturned at AN. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

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

WP:ERRORS

Someone please check WP:ERRORS. One unactioned request is eight hours old, and (even not counting mine) there are four requests that haven't gotten any responses. 2001:18E8:2:1020:394A:B524:DC74:9E3A (talk) 18:46, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

User_talk:Kauffner

Kauffner (talk · contribs) has now been ifdeffed for sockpuppetry (the most recent cases occurring just this week). The original source of the temporary block was edit warring over a page he created which was redirected after multiple consensus building discussions. He is now using his talk page to misrepresent the reasons for his block, and as a talk page copy of the article which was redirected. I believe this is an inappropriate use of the talk page so someone might want to do something about that. I will notify him, even though he cannot respond here. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:15, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the cut and past of the article from their talk page, along with a note explaining why it is inappropriate. Kauffner is free to present their arguments in an unblock request if they would like to, however using the talk page to continue the same arguments and disruption that led to the block will only result in their talk page access being revoked.--Jezebel'sPonyo 19:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Way to go. But he should really get a community block. Otherwise, he might write another article on Vietnamese writing, or something like that. SpanishHarlem1 (talk) 21:11, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

• Uh... who are you? This is your second edit, and your only other one was to your userspace. Are you another Kauffner sock? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:21, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
• Who the hell knows. Maybe it's Technoquat. Or Qworty. Or the Hanoi vandal--careful, no heavy metal ballads allowed! Drmies (talk) 02:35, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

He is certainly taking the mick with us. He knew where he was heading as his tricks where becoming too open. He gets involved in a really stupid editwar which leads to his block and has an army of sleeper socks prepared for that eventuality. I don't know what his reasoning was, maybe he thought he could get away with it and get his POW accross while pretending to be someone else. Maybe he wants to play cat-and-mouse with us. Either way he clearly has no regard for this community and as such has no place here. I move for a site-ban. Opinions? Agathoclea (talk) 17:24, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Ban proposal: Kauffner

With a history of sockpuppetry, disruption and being unable to work with others, I think it's time to propose a community ban on Kauffner. I think the community needs to step up and say to him, "You are done here."

• Support as nominator. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:00, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support as per my comments above : Agathoclea (talk) 07:30, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support - a long history of deliberately seeking out conflicts with particular users, creating attack pages, and now widespread socking to push their POV. Time to kick them out. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:51, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support - User is intentionally disrupting the wiki, and no evidence that they will change their behavior. Heymid (contribs) 08:32, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Kauffner's been dragged around the various boards enough times that I have no hope he'll see the error of his ways. If he'd wanted to avoid this ban, he had more than enough opportunities to turn over a new leaf. As I said here, he's completely unable to see that he could ever be in the wrong; though this is probably too optimistic, I'd like to think that a ban might convince him that he's the problem, not the rest of us. (To that end, I'd urge the admins not to close this thread until it's had a decent amount of participation, lest he rationalize this with the old "just a bad day at AN" line.) — PublicAmpers& 14:51, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support Kauffner obviously is unwilling to work constructively and I think any decision to unblock him should require the consensus of the community, which is the effect a ban would have. TFD (talk) 15:41, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support. He has definitively abandoned all pretense of editing constructively, the purpose of his socks being merely to show his contempt of Misplaced Pages and to fan his delusion of martyrdom. Favonian (talk) 18:47, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support. A banned editor can always, with the passage of time and a demonstration of contrition and understanding of the reasons for the ban, be reinstated. If at some point in the future Kauffner is able to see his way towards making positive contributions, then his eligibility to edit may be reconsidered. bd2412 T 19:45, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support You mean he wasn't banned already? -- tariqabjotu 19:54, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I read through the VERY long sock puppet investigation page, primarily because I believed if I kept reading it would make sense. But it never did. A lot of effort expended on his part, creating new accounts, just to have his way over some RMs. Maybe time away will give him perspective and realize that ones integrity isn't worth throwing away just to get some "Wins" in the RM column. So much effort, so little payoff and now here comes the hammer. NewJerseyLiz 00:42, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support. I agree with the points made above. I am One of Many (talk) 06:29, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
• Strong support - Maybe this consensus may be the one that they finally understand! PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 22:40, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support - per Lord Sjones23. Hi User:Drmies, the above SpanishHarlem1 (talk · contribs) is not Technoquat or Qworty. A Checkuser for further sleepers has been requested by Reaper Eternal. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:43, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support. After looking through all of this mess, I can only conclude from Kauffner's commentary (most recently and perhaps especially his 'point #1' here) that either he is completely incapable of understanding what led to his block, or, unfortunatly more likely, that he is deliberately and willfully acting as if he doesn't. And even if the original block were vindictive as he alleges (something which, for the record, I do not believe at all), his conduct since then has utterly destroyed any confidence I have that there is any way he could be a constructive contributor to the encyclopedia in the forseeable future, as even if his content was 100% FA-grade, his conduct has and would continue to create an utterly toxic environment, he is either incapable or unwilling to accept - or even to understand - how WP:CONSENSUS, redirecting, and RM/RfC discussions work , and from his commentary and contributions I must conclude that it is the latter. I hope that in time he'll come to realise what has led to this point, work to rectify those issues, and become a productive and valued contributor to the encyclopedia once more, but until then his continued utter refusal to get the point and continued trolling comments in response to this leaves no option but this one. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:45, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Request to censure personal attacks and harassment re: Peter Sellers article

User:SchroCat and User:Cassianto have established a long-term pattern of personal attacks and harassment against this editor, as a contributer to Peter Sellers. This has made the article an extremely hostile editing atmosphere since those editors began editing last summer, with little ability for others to amend or improve the article since that time. Note that I and another editor had been the primary contributers beginning years earlier.

A few diffs and summaries:

casually spouting insults;

• This is not a PA (and I think reflect more badly on you than any other editor). - SchroCat (talk) 07:56, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

accusing editors of bad faith and uncivil discussions;

• Considering you and Br'er Rabbit were edit warring at the time and being disruptive, I stand by the comments wholeheartedly. Sadly, to quote from my own words in that diff, the following have become something of a mantra when dealing with you sniping and attacks on the page: "I also think that your continual accusations of WP:OWNership to be an WP:uncivil, unnecessary ad hominem attack without basis or merit and (for the umpeeth time) I ask you to stop throwing them out whenever you happen to disagree with something". Yes, I certainly do still stand by that - even more so that when I first wrote it. - SchroCat (talk) 07:56, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

with supporting PAs by others;

• I'm not such Dr. B has indulged in a personal attack there? Particularly when you consider he was replying to this delightful contribution. - SchroCat (talk) 07:56, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

more failure to AGF, and threatening to “overhaul” an unrelated article I have contributed to and improved;

• There was no "threat". Polanski was an article Cassianto and I discussed updating, as it's in a rather parlous state. However, because you made the experience on Sellers so negative and toxic we moved onto another article (also now an FA) instead. - SchroCat (talk) 07:56, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

and threatening to turn that “overhaul” into a game;

• Not sure where you are getting the "game" idea from. I mention fun, that is all. Funnily enough I edit Misplaced Pages for fun and enjoyment, which isn't quite the "game" you accuse me of. Others will also note the ongoing accusations of ownership you baselessly throw around too. - SchroCat (talk) 07:56, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

with almost all of his comments equally loaded with PAs and “dittoed” by another;

• This was part of the conversation to revert an FA back to your preferred C-class version isn't it? I think that fact itself shows more about your approach to this article's development and improvement than anything else! - SchroCat (talk) 07:56, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

and even attacting a drive-by editor with very serious PAs;

• Eeerrmmm.... Not sure exactly what Betty Logan has said that even vaguely constitutes a personal attack there? "Maybe it only counted your 39 'one' votes once, so when a another voter came along and gave it a 5 it averaged out to 3?" Looks like she was trying to explain something to you, rather than throw insults at you... - SchroCat (talk) 07:56, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, maybe you're right. That's an aspect I never considered. BTW, what ever happened to the reader ratings options? --Light show (talk) 17:02, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

treating such PA as another reason to engage in argumenation with threats on my talk page and the the article’s talk page;

• 1. There was no personal attack in the thread; 2. Do not EVER delete or the comments of others on a talk page. If you think it's a problem, go to an admin to have the comments struck; 3. There was absolutely no threat at all. You were edit warring up to WP:3RR. I warned you that if you reverted again I would report you: not just acceptable, but necessary as part of WP:ANEW. - SchroCat (talk) 07:56, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

to make sure the the PAs of another remain.

• Highlighting to someone just how they have turned an article's talk page and history into a toxic soup isn't a PA, and the comments of independent parties below support that this isn't a PA. - SchroCat (talk) 07:56, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Review of the above would be helpful. As Peter Sellers was a notable UK comedian, it makes this request to censure PAs an oxymoron, sadly to say.--Light show (talk) 18:34, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Addendum: The user was notified about this discussion on their talk page, per requirements, but they immediately deleted the notice. --Light show (talk) 19:10, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

As an onlooker, I seriously don't get what's going on here. WP:NPA states that a personal attack is either "using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views," "accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence," and that "insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done." Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:03, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll look at this, but the first thing I saw from Talk:Peter Sellers was that Light Show is at 3RR due to the repeated removal of comments that, frankly, don't rise to the level of personal attack. Whatever else happens here, Light Show, you really and truly need to stop removing people's comments. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 19:08, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Also, if you're going to discuss the edits of "A few other editors", you need to notify those editors, as required by policy. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 19:09, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done, but also deleted --Light show (talk) 19:16, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Purlease. These arn't PA's. Just a complaint from an editor who didn't like the fact that another editor came a long and made substantial changes that improved the article so much it is now FA. -- MisterShiney ✉ 19:26, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I have had my say on the Sellers talk page (which was deleted numerous times by the complainant), so I don't feel the need to defend myself here. Being responsible for co-writing and co-nominating the article which was otherwise wallowing in C-class, and now finding itself as an FA, does not warrant the kind of trolling which the complainant has been doing since its promotion. If protecting the article is such a crime, then I will happily request to block myself! -- Cassianto 19:57, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Pointless thread, not constructive. I strongly suggest that this is closed asap.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:17, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't see any personal attacks in the diffs provided. I do see edit warring from Light show, however. Might not be a horrible idea for Light show to go edit something else for a while - fighting over the infobox, when that seems to have already been settled recently, seems unwise as well. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 20:24, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Are you having a laugh, LightShow, considering the bad faith bile you've spewed across the talk page over the last year or so? Considering you have been overwhelmingly obstructive since we started improving the article, it's rich that you're the one complaining. Since we started improving the article, Light Show has consistently

• thrown baseless OWNership accusations around;
• repeated the threats– with further pointless threats to bring me to ANI on no grounds at all;
• and repeated ad nauseum in edit summaries too;

We also had to put up with

• constant sniping about the article improvements;
• more baseless accusations of ownership;
• and further complaints about people improving the article;
• Even during the FAC procedure we had to put up with disruption after disruption.

Even after the community had its say about the article and it had passed through FAC, LightShow (or WikiWatcher as he them was) still tried to disrupt the article: thankfully Drmies showed up to put an end to that nonsense. Sadly it didn't stop, and there was even more sniping about the article.

Ever since we started the improvements, we have faced nothing but bad faith nonsense from LightShow against our efforts. It's frustrating and demoralising to have to deal with the endless sniping, carping and negativity. I am always deeply suspicious about accusations of ownership, especially from someone who wants to revert improvements back to their own preferred version: there is more than a touch of hypocrisy involved there I think.

Sadly this isn't the first time LightShow has deleted comments he doesn’t like and this also has to stop. - SchroCat (talk) 20:37, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Given his petty trolling of the article over many months, I do wonder if a topic ban imposed on him might be the more constructive thing to do. None of us should have to deal with a disgruntled editor with a grudge of his sort.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:49, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• Wrong place? As was just pointed out elsewhere, this post is on AN, not ANI, as intended. Should I move it all or does it make any significant difference? --Light show (talk) 23:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

How about moving it here? -- Cassianto 00:24, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Nah, this page is fine. We're not really discussing a single incident, but a long-term pattern of disruptive behavior that seems to warrant further review. I am surprised, though, that no one has proposed a topic ban. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 12:08, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

They have, Dr. Blofeld above. -- Cassianto 14:47, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Ah! Missed that. I'd agree that a topic ban of Light show is warranted at this point, and would support if someone wants to draft it. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 15:59, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm worried that there maybe a conflict of interests if I (or SchroCat for that matter) do it. Is there anyone else who could oblige? -- Cassianto 16:21, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like a productive idea. Since my last body-copy edit was simply splitting a 350-word paragraph into two shorter ones a few months ago (which, of course, was also undone by SC), that would at least save Schro/Cass click-time. And other than adding a few PD images, the one before that was last year, also deleted. On the other hand, since I'm not fond of climbing 10-foot high walls to work on articles, it seems like the topic wall/barrier is already in place. Not just for me, for anyone, as the edit history proves. --Light show (talk) 16:40, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

LightShow, your edits were reverted because they were bad. Nothing more, nothing less. Drop the "ownership" accusations: the fact you keep trying to revert an FA back you your preferred C-class version speaks volumes over who has ownership issues. - SchroCat (talk) 16:43, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

While I've issues with SchroCat's ownership tendencies on other articles, I don't think these comments really rank as personal attacks. Discussing differences of opinion on edit decisions can lead to heated disagreements. But I don't see name-calling, trash talking or threats here. I understand your feelings of frustration at not having your own viewpoint be the consensus or being ignored in discussions on Talk Pages but I don't think these examples warrant a topic ban...for either of you. NewJerseyLiz 16:29, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

FFS, this is not a forum for you to start throwing around unjustified and baseless personal attacks, NJL. Provide evidence or withdraw this ridiculous, unwarranted and unjustified accusation. - SchroCat (talk) 16:41, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

NewJerseyLiz, not only is your post baseless and unjust, you also appear to have the inability to constructively make a point. This post is far too neutral to be helpful to the situation and may as well not be here at all. -- Cassianto 17:32, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Seriously? Did you only read the first sentence in that paragraph? I was defending SchroCat and saying that the claim of PAs was not justified. My understanding of her feelings didn't focus on any articles in dispute between the two parties but I just empathizing with her frustration. I don't know how anyone could have taken that expression of sympathy as a personal attack! That's just crazy and being oversensitive. And, Cassianto, maybe we should all submit our comment to you for approval before posting them. And, FWIW, your words against me are definitely not "helpful" at all.

But you've made me think twice about coming to another user's defense in the future. Don't worry, I won't speak up for you again. Let others try taking on that role and see if it comes back to bite them, too. NewJerseyLiz 00:51, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for going off-topic but when other editors attack you, I think a rebuttal statement is justified. NewJerseyLiz 00:55, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

My apologies for my ill-considered remarks. Misplaced Pages is not a forum to hash out such issues. I apologize to SchroCat and Cassianto for my sarcasm. If I have issues, I will go to your Talk Pages rather than comment on an AN that is focused on a particular problem I'm not involved in. NewJerseyLiz 13:41, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't an attack, it was a point made in reference to your ownership remark and the fact that your comment was so damn neutral, so please stop being so precious. If your idea of sticking up for someone is accusing them of having "ownership tendencies" then I would hate to see what you write about someone when you complain about them! Also, you admit that this ANI is baseless inasmuch that you see "... name-calling, trash talking or threats here", yet go onto say that "I don't think these examples warrant a topic ban...for either of you". What do you suggest then? Carry on as we are? Have you seen the grief SchroCat and I persistently get on the Talk Page from the complainant? That's what I mean by your comment being unhelpful to the discussion. It's like having a shop thief in a court dock who is then told "I don't think banning you from the shop is the answer". -- Cassianto 08:36, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

My mistake, but when I read "While I've issues with SchroCat's ownership tendencies on other articles" from someone I've only interacted with twice before, it comes across as a rather negative smear, rather than as a "defence" to me. - SchroCat (talk) 05:33, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Not always. Once it's understood that with some editors, the SOP for discussions is simply "The best defense is a good offense,", why bother? --Light show (talk) 01:24, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

No, LS, reacting to smears isn't going onto the offence at all, and your comment is unhelpful, to say the least. - SchroCat (talk) 05:33, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

To my knowledge no "ownership" complaint has ever been upheld against SchroCat. It is usually the default accusation that is levelled at caretaker editors when they reject an edit to an article, so please let's not refer to it as if it is an established fact that he has previously been sanctioned for. We should focus solely on the remarks and the context they were made in. There are no real attacks here, some of his comments are a bit blunt and dismissive and show Schro's exasperation more than anything, but they were made against an editor who literally advocated reverting an FA class article to its C-class state i.e. nothing productive was going to come out of engaging with such an editor. The two positions are simply irreconcilable. Furthermore, I'm not convinced that Light Show's presence on the article is a positive thing if he still maintains his stance that the article should be reverted to its C-class state: it's not going to happen so maybe an enforced break from this particular article will be better all-round. Betty Logan (talk) 06:43, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Betty Logan. That always seems to be the standard response against editors with an extensive history of constructively editing and promoting articles that they somehow think that they "own" articles. Which is just plain not true. But I bet they dang sure have a pretty good idea what a constructive edit is and what improves an article. -- MisterShiney ✉ 19:25, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Interaction ban needed

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

I require an IBAN between myself and the administrator User:Future Perfect at Sunrise Since we argued over a year ago on the article on the Ahmad Shah Massoud article he has done nothing but display a pure battlefield mentality towards me. He belittles my contributions, he incessantly attacks me and asks for me to be banned, he has openly admitted to stalking me, he refuses point blank to compromise in any editing dispute, he prefers to go with threats of AE. Proof of his attitude towards me are obvious, but the best example is this, twice I have tried for FA on the article Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War, the second try is now ongoing. The only times FPaS has been to that article is to oppose this. If he had any issues at with this article, should he not have discussed them before? He has no interest in this article, his only interest is in getting at me. I want this stopped. I see no reason at all that an admin can state openly that they will stalk an editor, and not just stalk them but deliberately create issues just to piss an editor off, and for no reason other than a year ago they argued over an article, and FPaS cannot let it go. So I want an IBAN, and it will not affect any "admin powers" as FPaS is already involved. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:50, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Now I know you've been around the drama boards more than enough to be aware that if you want to propose any kind of restriction you best come with a stack of diffs that support your position. So, bring forth some evidence or get ready to see this just closed up with no action. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:55, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

You have been around for long enough to know how he is about me. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:30, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

But here you go, I asked him 28 July 2012 to stop with his stalking, his response tough This after he accuses me of misrepresentation of sources I have always followed the sources, it is why I get so much shit from every one all the time. His only edits to the article I am trying to get to FA is proof of his battlefield mentality. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:42, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

And is it OK for him to mention my drinking habits on an article talk page? Or question my intellect? (or lack of, depending on perspective) Darkness Shines (talk) 21:04, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

You've mentioned your drinking enough times yourself, usually as an excuse for your recurrent disruptive behaviour, so it was hardly an unreasonable guess, was it? As for the article, I stumbled across it last year when you were for the first time trying to push it through FAC. I noted a couple of concerns over it, and so I did the same again now that you were trying to push it ahead the second time, as it still has the same kinds of quality issues. In the meantime, I've observed you in about a thousand different POV disputes over various similar issues. I've probably agreed with you about as often as I've disagreed with you, because, frankly, many of your opponents have been even more problematic editors than you are. That doesn't change the fact that your editing is frequently of poor quality. If you don't like people calling you out for that during a quality review such as FAC, bad luck. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:18, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Ya well it don't matter now as the FAis getting pulled, so what is the fuckingpoint, I have worked long nad hard on that article, and all I get is shit from him. Fuck it. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:24, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

School proxy autoblock

I am helping out with a classroom Misplaced Pages editing project run out of the Rishi Valley School and they have a weekend editing session and for the last couple of weeks they have reported that they get automatically blocked for 24 hours. The school uses a proxy server and the students login individually from multiple terminals around the same time. Having read Misplaced Pages:Autoblock and IP block exemption rule, it does not appear clear to me as to how this can be handled, do the students have to each request an unblock after the blocking or can I as an administrator grant the select set of students the autoblock-exempt rights? I think a checkuser of the IP under which the following users Hibiscus2581 (talk · contribs) and Yash2944 (talk · contribs) work might reveal why they are getting blocked (how does one know who is causing the collateral damage?). Their sessions begin on Saturday, tomorrow and would be good if they can edit without troubles. PS: I am really not sure what the problem is - for a while, the school IP was 59.90.99.73 (it is not static, but seems to be rarely reset) and that does not seem to show up in the autoblock list Shyamal (talk) 09:32, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

• Note - Additional information related to this project can be found at this section of the education noticeboard. OhanaUnited 04:19, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I had not seen that request. Have commented there too. Shyamal (talk) 10:44, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Inappropriate page moves by User:Captain Assassin! (Revisited)

Captain Assassin! (talk · contribs · logs) has been performing a number of page moved that I consider to be inappropriate. The latest is described here. On July 20, 2013, Tneedham1 (talk · contribs) created the article Outlander (TV series). On August 4, Captain Assassin! moved this page to Outlander (2014 TV series), then created a redirect out of it, which he pointed toward his own newly created article at the former location Outlander (TV series). The funniest part is that comparing the diffs of the 2 articles, and , you will see that the articles are exactly the same. Captain Assassin! has just copied the work of Tneedham1 onto his newly created page. IMO, this is completely inappropriate and unfair to the other editor.

This is not the first time Captain Assassin! has moved articles so that he can create his own and get "credit" for it (and he does use the word "credit" often). Just over a week ago, he moved Hercules 3D, created by User:Mythoingramus, to Hercules 3D (film) and created a redirect so that it would point to his newly created version of Hercules 3D. There is no reason why Captain Assassin! could not add to/improve the original page.

Other recent examples:

• The Normal Heart (film) was moved to The Normal Heart (play) (then redirected to The Normal Heart} so he could recreate The Normal Heart (film)
• The Flash (film) was moved to The Flash (disambiguation) (then redirected to Flash) so he could recreate The Flash (film)
• Dead Island (film) was moved to Dead Island (video game) (then redirected to Dead Island) so he could recreate Dead Island (film)
• I could go on and on…

Looking at his talk page, there have been discussions regarding page moves like this with other editors, including a "feud" with Rusted AutoParts (talk · contribs), which includes earlier discussions here and here. See also the history of deletions (8 within 2.5 months!) on this page: Into the Woods (film)

(On a separate but related note, Captain Assassin! has been under considerable scrutiny for creating inappropriate redirects. That discussion is for another day because I don't have the time to document that here right now. I will mention that at least 7 editors have pointed out problems with this behavior to him in the last 3 months: , , , , , , , .)

Is it possible to block an editor from being able to move pages? I feel Captain Assassin!'s page moves are inappropriate and unfair to other editors. It definitely undermines the collaborative spirit of Misplaced Pages. I do not think that he deserves this privilege. Thanks. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 21:52, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• NOTE: I am currently fixing the editor's copy-paste creations, so some of the links above may appear red. I will look at warning/sanctioning after that. Black Kite (talk) 21:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• I have fixed the Outlander issue by deleting the copy-paste and moving the original version back. I have history-merged the two versions of Hercules 3D together so that the original creating editor's edits are in the history. The others are not so straightforward, as the articles are either about different things or actually contain the user's own content. I'll continue to look at it. Black Kite (talk) 22:03, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

My analysis, seeing as I've been viewing his conduct since May when he swiped A Million Ways to Die in the West because he had the content, is that he wants the credit. He seemingly has no other motivation, everything is a personal attack to him.

There is no way to prevent an editor from moving pages without blocking the editor entirely; all registered users are able to move pages once they hit the autoconfirmed threshhold. However, we could implement a pagemove ban on him; this would be something saying "You're not allowed to move pages anymore, and you'll be blocked if you do it". Nyttend (talk) 22:55, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest that probably needs to extend to creating redirects as well. Simply a glance at the user's talkpage strongly indicates someone who doesn't actually seem to grasp simple concepts, and then proceeds to completely ignore them once they've been explained to them. Black Kite (talk) 23:07, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I would support a page move ban, as well as the redirect creation ban mentioned by Black Tie. Captain Assassin!'s edits are extremely disruptive, and he doesn't see any problems with his actions. Occasionally he does apologize for a "mistake", then continues to make it again and again. I do not feel this issue will go away without administrative action of some kind.--Logical Fuzz (talk) 01:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

You see now, I'm not the only here. And we already discussed it, it was resolved and now he again moved it into some film project page. What now? -- Assassin! No, Captain Assassin! 23:17, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

That's only a minor issue. What about your redirecting of the Outlander article and then recreating it yourself with the same content? That's simply disruptive. What was the thinking behind that? Black Kite (talk) 23:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

It is not only disruptive, although that may also be block worthy, it is apparent copyright violation (and plain old deceitful), because there is not attribution to the original author under the license. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:40, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry about that, won't happen again. -- Assassin! No, Captain Assassin! 00:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

That isn't an explanation of why you did it in the first place. Why did you do it? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Look, I created the redirect of Outlander, a user CSD it and got it removed on July 19. So on the next day some user created it, I was just in bad mood already so it happened that way. -- Assassin! No, Captain Assassin! 00:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC)