Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:32, 21 January 2014

• 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 24 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 22 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 91 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 71 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 61 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 52 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 45 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 35 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)

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

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

(Initiated 18 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 104 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 83 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 70 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 61 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 41 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

Laura Hale topic ban

I would like to propose a topic ban for User:LauraHale from using any Spanish-language sources, since these are her most frequently used sources, but she doesn't understand them and frequently introduces completely incorrect "facts" into articles. This is always a problem, but certainly from someone with a semi-official function wrt Spanish articles.

From her user page: "I have been a Wikimedian in Residence for the Spanish Paralympic Committee since late June 2013."

She recently came back to my attention in the discussion Misplaced Pages talk:Did you know/Archive 99#Laura Hale revisited from early December 2013, where she had an article lined up for the main page claiming that a Spanish Paralympian had competed at the 1996 Paralympics, which was completely false. Her defense there was:

"I admit that I made a mistake because of a bad Google translation. I have tried to be as diligent as possible to insure I make very few mistakes of this kind. Problems of potentially misunderstanding a source is why we have a review process though, to try to correct any unintentional insertions of non-factual information. It's also why DYK requires articles to be fully sourced."

Yesterday, she moved Rafael Botello Jimenez to the main namespace, but again, this article contains blatant misinformation which seems to be due to poorly (machine-)translated Spanish sources. In this case, the article claims that "In 2010, he competed in the New York City Marathon, finishing in a time of 1:47.39, making him the first Spanish wheelchair competitor to finish the race." This is rather awkwardly phrased, but stringly gives the impression that he was the first Spanish wheelchaor competitor ever to finish the NY marathon, which is clearly wrong, considering that e.g. in 2007 another Spanish competitor finished ahead of him. The article also claims that "He was the first Spanish wheelchair competitor to go sub 1:15 on in the marathon and sub 10:15 in the 5,000 meters.", but the source makes it clear that he went sub 1 hour 25 (not 15) minutes on the marathon, and it would be nice if different notation was used for hour:minutes and minutes:seconds, not as it is done here.

Another example, also from yesterday: Aitor Oroza Flores: the article claims that he "works as a mechanic, cook and lecturer.", which seems rather intriguing. In reality, his hobbies are "Aficiones: Lectura, mecánica y cocina.", so he doesn't work as a lecturer but likes reading...

We shouldn't let an editor who has so much trouble understanding even the most basic Spanish texts work on BLPs of Spanish people, and even less so as a "Wikimedian in Residence" for such topics. Considering that the problems continue after even the rather blatant incident from last month, and seem to be widespread and serious (the Aitor Oroza Flores example above is a good illustration of this), protecting her, ourselves, and the people involved from further problems and a more massive cleanup operation than we probably already need to undertake, needs to be our priority. A topic ban seems to be the most efficient way to achieve this. Fram (talk) 17:17, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

You'd need more evidence of consistent multiple errors in her articles than that Fram.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:26, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, Dr Blofeld, it seems reasonable to me that once we know someone doesn't adequately speak the language of the sources they're using, and therefore has been introducing errors into articles based on poor translation, we should ask them to stop trying to use sources in that language. Once or twice is enough for that.

However, what's not entirely clear to me from Fram's summary is whether someone has tried to have a conversation with Laura about this. I don't see one on her talk page, at least. Fram, have you or anyone else approached Laura and said, "Hey, it looks like your Spanish isn't really good enough to be doing this sort of sourcing; could you please avoid using Spanish-language sources"? Has she refused to do so? Or have we jumped right from "I recognize a problem in someone else" to "proposing topic ban" without attempting "asking them to stop"? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:38, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I believe such conversation is contained in the first reference provided by Fram. (Actually, I see a consensus for DYK topic ban there, does someone know why the topic ban was not implemented?)--Ymblanter (talk) 17:45, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

The DYK talk thread appears to be about topic-banning Laura from DYK. It mentions the Spanish issues, but only in the context of "...and here's why she shouldn't be allowed to submit DYKs," and no one in that thread is really addressing whether Laura should stop using Spanish sources. I guess my point is that no one has presented Laura with "Your Spanish skills aren't up to the job, we need you to stop using Spanish sources for now, in any article," and it seems weird to escalate to a topic ban without seeing if she'll just, you know, stop. That said, however, I do think Laura needs to stop attempting to use Spanish sources, based on what I'm seeing. I'm just wondering whether a topic ban is necessary to have that happen (and maybe it is, but I'd like to see this involve a conversation with Laura about this particular issue, so we can determine that). Hopefully now that this thread is here, she'll be willing to weigh in and engage with the community's concerns. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:27, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

(ec)I have not contacted her on her talk page, no. I would think that someone who has her position, and has a problem like the one from the DYK discussion from last month, would recognise that she needs to take a lot more care with the sources she uses. Considering that with her position as Wikimedian in residence and her topics, she basically can't agree to not using Spanish sources, but seeing that on the other hand she doesn't seem capable to do so with sufficient accuracy at all, I thought that having an outside, binding discussion would be more logical and fruitful. Anyway, other articles and DYKs seem to have sufficient problems as well, looking at rejected recent DYKS like Template:Did you know nominations/María Carmen Rubio and Template:Did you know nominations/David Mouriz Dopico. Fram (talk) 18:04, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I echo what User:Fluffernutter said. If someone (doesn't matter if it's Jimbo or an IP editor) heavily relies on Google Translate or other online translation service to translate an entire sentence, they probably don't have a clue in that language to judge whether the translated sentence is factually correct. Now back to Laura. Fram provided evidence of three articles that contained wrong information as a result of improper translation. Others above have brought the previous DYK topic ban attempt into the discussion. From a chronological perspective, we see that only the first article made its way to DYK and the two subsequent articles did not. So I don't think we should tie this with the DYK topic ban. However, since this topic ban proposal is about "using any Spanish-language sources", I see the merit in it. But if it's enacted, how can we enforce it? Laura could have used other languages (e.g. Italian, Portuguese) to circumvent this topic ban and we will be back here very shortly. OhanaUnited 20:16, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

My understanding is that she only speaks English, so topic-ban for using any machine translations seems in principle sensible to me.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:34, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• Ban? When the obvious solution is to run it by a competent translator? We are still tying to help each other out, I think. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:54, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• " I would think that someone who has her position..." Wait, what has her employment got to do with this? If she wasn't a Wikimedian in Residence, would you still be making this proposal? If so, why is it relevant? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:02, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
  • This is not someone making a one-off or limited series of articles based on Spanish sources, this is someone who does this in a semi-offocial position on a serial basis and can be expected to continue doing these articles. Her position is important background, also indicating that she is not some newbie. Fram (talk) 21:50, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Apart from the original mistake (which has been discussed before), you've given three examples here:

1. The first is mildly badly written English ("In 2010 ... making him the first Spanish wheelchair competitor to finish the race" implies the 2010 race, not every year's race.) It's not a translation problem; the problem is merely the slightly ambiguous English.
2. The second looks just as likely, in fact far more likely, to be a typo rather than anything to do with Google translate. (Does Google translate turn "25" into "15"?) The 1 and 2 keys are next to each other on most keyboards.
3. The third is a bit more uncertain, but could just as well be a careless hurried manual translation (see false friend) rather than a Google translate problem.

Your evidence doesn't prove your thesis, in fact it doesn't even come close. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:11, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• • The topic ban is not based on her using machine translations, human translations or baboon translations, the tpic ban is because she consistently uses bad translations. I really don't care where she get these, the "Google translation" comes from her own admission, not from some research on what produced these results. Fram (talk) 21:50, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• I really do think that this should have been discussed with Laura before it was brought here, As a Wikimedian in Residence in Australia she did some excellent work. She is now living in Spain, and presumably learning Spanish. A quiet talk with her would probably result in getting a Spanish friend to check her translations. All this drama could have been avoided. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:34, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
  • She had a completely incorrect DYK due to a bad translation, which was discussed with her at WT:DYK, but which didn't change anything. Yes, all this drama could have been avoided if she had made some effort instead of continuing with more of the same... Fram (talk) 21:50, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
  • This is a very ill judged discussion. Lets just imagine that these mistakes had come from poorly misunderstood sources in English. They might be misunderstood facts, poorly written English or because it is unusual English. Would we ban that editor from using English sources? We are constantly having to make value judgements about sources and facts and we make mistakes. I'm pleased to see that someone spotted an error. They should fix it and move on. If there is a problem then it doesnt require us to vote on someones first guess at a solution to the problem. Other solutions exist ... and actually the problem is not going to cause the sky to fall. Victuallers (talk) 22:06, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Yes, what on earth is this doing on an Administrator noticeboard. Fram should have discussed this on Laura's user page. That would be much closer to our standard approaches with problematic user behaviour. As for Laura's English, no it's not perfect (nor is mine), but that's the easiest thing in the world for any of us to fix. And why a topic ban? She obviously has good knowledge of the area involved, and access to good sources. The aim here should be to simply fix the translation problem. HiLo48 (talk) 22:10, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
      • And how would you suggest we do this? How do you fix a translation problem? Victuallers as well says "other solutions exist", but offers none. This is not about making "value judgments", when you claim that someone works as a lecturer because you can't understand Spanish and the source says that someone has reading as a hobby, then you just aren't fit to use Spanish sources (and no, the Spanish source was not written poorly or in unusual Spanish; a sports journalist writing solely about Spanish artists should know the word "aficionado", and here the word was "Aficiones", which is very basic Spanish anyay) and when someone has had serious problems in that regard recently, but continues to create dozens of articles based on nothing but Spanish and Catalan sources, then something needs to be done. Fram (talk) 05:46, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
        • Discuss it with her? Offer to help? HiLo48 (talk) 06:16, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
          • Indeed. Serious lack of WP:AGF from the originators of this AN thread, from what I'm seeing. Orderinchaos 08:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
        • It just seems hard to believe we are bereft of knowledge of Spanish, and no one will help vet before publication here when she has a problem on BLP's. For example, I have asked knowledgeable wikipedians to vet non-English sources, and they seem to be quite helpful people. Doesn't your proposal seem more than a little cruel for someone working in Spain?-- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:48, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
          • • • Cruel? It's her choice to continue producing clearly deficient articles on BLPs by using completely incorrect translations (no matter how they are produced), even after the result of such actions have been pointed out. In the above linked DYK discussion from one month ago, she stated "My Spanish is good enough that I can pick up most facts, and know where there are issues. I also hangout in #wikimedia-es and #wikinews-es a lot asking for clarification on Spanish I do not understand. I also have access to native speakers that assist me when I ask." If all these assurances she gave are not sufficient, then what more can we ask? She is producing English language articles for the Spanish Paralympic Committee, who probably trust her work blindly (considering that she is the Wikimedian in Residence). Isn't it cruel towards the Committee to let her continue to produce such basic errors? We know there are problems, her assurances from a month ago seem to be worthless, so the next step is to force a change. Fram (talk) 13:18, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
                • • But, no the first step and restriction is not a total ban. 'Hi Laura. I notice you are still having problems with BLP Spanish translations: ... . Especially because these are BLPs, we should have these articles and sources vetted by people more knowledgeable in Spanish before publication (See ) What do you say?' The Committee probably believes we are helpful to each other and interested in their work that is notable, so it would be good to foster that belief, since we regularly say we produce this work in a "spirit of camaraderie and cooperation". -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:42, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
                    • Considering the years of problems with this editor, as evidenced by the comments from others here as well, this is hardly "the first step". And I have no interest in playing games to hide the incompetence (or whatever reason applies) of some editor; yes, we are interested in their work and the notable athletes, and for that reason we feel that it is very problematic that the dedicated editor for these is making such a mess of it, and continues doing so after many earlier problems. That is the message the Committee should get, not some "spirit of camaraderie and cooperation". Fram (talk) 14:10, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
                      • Games? Cooperation is not a game, here. What years of problems with Spanish translations? You appear to admit that some of the work is serviceable and you say below that there is virtually no one else who is interested in writing for Misplaced Pages about the Committee. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:35, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
                        • Cooperation is a two-way street though. And it looks as if you prefer incorrect articles to no articles? I'ld rather not have an article in an encyclopedia, than an article with such blatantly incorrect information. And if I were the Committee, I certainly wouldn't want to have a Wikimedian in Residence who contributes such incorrect and poor articles. Fram (talk)
                          • I am seriously concerned with the fact that we seem to have some real problems with Laura's editing, she is aware of the discussion, but has chosen not to respond. I have left another message at her talk page, inviting he either here or to any other place at her choice.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:48, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
                            • • What? You have not read what I wrote (I said approach with a vetting plan). If cooperation is a street, this board is telling the OP that they have not driven on it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:00, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
                                • I do not understand what you are talking about. What cooperation? What board? Anyway she has responded, hopefully we can resolve the issue at least temporarily.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:21, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
                                  • • I assumed you wrote, "cooperation is a two way street", (is that someone else's unsigned comment?) so that is the cooperation I am talking about. As for board, I meant this comment notice board, AN. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:27, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
                                      • No, I did not write that, but anyway, thanks, I now understand what you mean. My communication with Laura is in the meanwhile going nowhere. If someone feels they can help I would welcome any help there.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:36, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
                                        • My apologies, my signature was missing there, I have now added it. Sorry for the confusion. Fram (talk) 15:39, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• It's rather poor form to start a thread here without a serious attempt to discuss the matter with Laura privately: it's not like she's difficult to contact. I've always found her to be receptive to comments, including in relation to errors in her DYK nominations. Nick-D (talk) 08:01, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
• Agreed with Nick and others - a topic ban should be the last stage of a process that has involved failed previous attempts to resolve any perceived problems and serial offending. I'm not seeing any evidence of any previous attempts at all - there's been a race on to find the biggest hammer to crack the nut, which is an abuse of the process being engaged. If you have a problem, talk to the editor about it. And the basis is weak too - many new articles on Misplaced Pages, even by experienced editors, are weak, contain misunderstandings of sources etc... then the Misplaced Pages community fixes them up. Orderinchaos 08:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
• I see her Australian colleagues are rushing to her defence. No, Laura Hale has consistently demonstrated a cavalier attitude to the use of sources; that is why she's been effectively chased out of Australian paralympic topics, where like a rapid bulldozer she created hundreds of article stubs that were marked by the poor use of sources and consequent factual errors—not to mention the display of a talent for appallingly bad prose. Something more substantive needs to be done to stop damage to the project. There are so many examples, but here is one where the BLP subject came along and corrected bloopers herself. You wonder whether Hale actually reads the sources she quotes.

  "what's not entirely clear to me from Fram's summary is whether someone has tried to have a conversation with Laura about this"—The problem is that anyone who approaches Hale concerning her substandard editorial practices is likely to be slapped in the face. That's what happened to me. So my advice is: don't dare to. Tony (talk) 09:35, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Firstly, I'm not a "colleague", nor are most here - I write on political and geographic topics, as a cursory inspection of my edits would quickly demonstrate. And I think it's a little misleading to not note your own mile-wide conflict of interest with regard to Laura - it'd be fair to say you don't like her very much for reasons that have nothing to do with WP and everything to do with the internal politics of a national chapter neither of you are part of any more. Orderinchaos 15:15, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

The more I look into this, the less I believe that a topic ban from using Spanish sources is really sufficient. Looking at random articles she created the past few months, I stumbled upon Cesar Neira Perez. It contains the sentence "He was the number one cyclists to finish in the Road Trial race." What is intended is that he won the gold medal at the Individual time trial, i.e. at the Cycling at the 2008 Summer Paralympics – Men's road time trial, where he is still a redlink BTW (the article she created should be at Cesar Neira). "Contrarreloj en Carretera" can literally be translated as "Trial in Road" or "Road Trial", but certainly in a cycling, sporting context, it is the road time trial that is intended. And "the number one cyclists to finish"? Well, that sentence seems to be a stock phrase, looking at Juan José Méndez Fernández: "He was the number three cyclists to finish in the Road Trial LC4 race." "He was the number two cyclists to finish in the Road Trial LC4 race. He was the number three cyclists to finish in the Individual Pursuit track LC4 race." But there are equally incorrect variations, like in Roberto Alcaide García: "He was the first racer to finish in the Individual Pursuit track LC2 race." "He was the second racer to finish in the Individual Pursuit track LC2 race. He was the third racer to finish in the Road Trial LC2 race." Perhaps he really was the third racer to finish, but that is totally unimportant. If he finished third though, and won a bronze medal, then perhaps that should be written a bit more clearly? I don't know whether LauraHale doesn't understand sports or doesn't copyedit her articles, but really, this kind of crap should not be created by someone with her credentials.

Two days ago, she added "he was a participant in the awarding of the Medals of Asturias component, ". What meant is that he was awarded a Medal of Asturias. In the same series of edits, she incorrectly removed the 1992 participation and medals this athlete won. Editors which are supposed to be knowledgeable in the field, but start removing correct and fundamental information (Paralympics participation and medals are quite essential info for a Paralympic athlete), make Misplaced Pages worse, not better, with little chance of being swiftly being corrected as they are implicitly trusted, and working in a field with very few editors. Fram (talk) 14:04, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Not understanding Spanish, or sports, or both? Juan Emilio Gutiérrez Berenguel: "He also participated in road events, finishing one event in eleventh place in a thirteen deep with a time of 1:42.51." This rather vague sentence refers to the Cycling at the 2012 Summer Paralympics – Men's road race C1–3, where he finished 11th in the time given (note that he still is a redlink in that article). So where does the "thirteen deep" come from. Well the actual field had 40 cyclists, of which 26 finished, but the source LauraHale used, , states "En la clase C3, Juan Emilio Gutiérrez fue undécimo (1:42.51), seguido de Juan José Méndez (1:43.32) y Maurice Eckard (1:43.32)." Logically, if you finish in 11th place, and there are two people behind you, then the field was 13 deep, no? Well, no, not if the source really means "followed by two other Spaniards (given) among a number of riders from other countries (not interesting to our readers, so not given)".

Her articles are filled with these errors, uninformative sentences, oft-repeated phrases, misconceptions, and so on, and I don't know what the best solution is to deal with it. Misplaced Pages:Competence is required comes to mind. With an editor with hundreds of DYKs and so on, it is not as if they are still learning the requirements. Fram (talk) 14:39, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

If what you say is true you'd need to provide sufficient evidence of mass errors in everything she creates. She's created a staggering number of articles on Spanish paralympians and I'd need to see examples of multiple serious errors in articles to warrant a ban. At the end of the day she's a volunteer here and doesn't have to bother. I'm curious Fram, do you suspect she's being paid to do this? This really doesn't seem to be the right place to make such a proposal and as you can see most of the editors who've turned up are Australian who know Laura and it's hardly going to attract a neutral investigation.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:16, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Of course she doesn't have to bother, that's hardly the point. I have no idea if she is paid or not, that's not really essential (although I would consider it a waste of money if she was); I notice loads of problems (probably not in every article, but in way too many), and no signs of improvement or even recognition of the problems. She has now responded on her talk page concerning this, claiming e.g. that "The three examples Fram provided were not about translation errors. One was a typographical error. One was contorting the English language to avoid close paraphrasing from a translation. The third was a misunderstanding of a topic, not an issue of translation." The third she refers to is putting "works as a lecturer" instead of "hobby is reading"; I fail to see how this "misundestanding of a topic" can be anything but an issue of translation, but feel free to provide an explanation that is not less charitable than "translation issue" (I don't think she doesn't know the difference between work and hobbies, and I also don't believe that she was deliberately including false information here, so which explanations remain possible?). Fram (talk) 15:47, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• @Dr. Blofeld: I think you are going too far in your defence of LauraHale. You are acting ignobly to the extent of casting aspersions on the motives of Fram even when the proof of Laura's incompetence is for all to see. Yes, we should stick up for fellow DYK contributors, but don't let blind loyalty obstruct the real goal of improving WP. Languages are full of intricacies, and many do not become apparent until you become an advanced user who understands the culture as well as the words themselves. LH is so obviously out of her depth with Spanish. She does not understand it properly to make good sense of the story, which explains why this is a recurring problem. I think you, of all people, should be having private words in her ear to get her to amend her ways before the community does with blunt force. -- Ohc  02:36, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

How am I going too far in defending Laura??? I think my response has been fairly neutral. All I know is that Fram for a very long time has not approved of Laura and he felt that way long before she even began working on Spanish articles, it stems from her earliest Australian sportspeople articles. If every article Laura produces does contain major translation errors then this is a clear problem and needs to be solved. I've simply said that I really want to see evidence that she's consistently makes translation errors. A handful of articles with minor issues out of several thousand Laura has created isn't enough for me to think that a ban from Spanish translation would be necessary. Rather I'd urge her to slow down and get a friend in Spain or on here to proof read them.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:46, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I tried to talk to her at her talk page, but I got the impression she believes the percentage of her errors is low. Then I randomly took one article she created (the last one) and found four significant errors (which I corrected). So I believe this is a problem, I believe a topic ban is not the best solution (since the problem is not restricted to translation errors), and I do not see from her side any willingness to slow done. May be you can help on her talk page to take the matter further. Note that I am perfectly neutral, I do not have any issues with her, I do knot know who is her employer and I do not want to know, and our previous interaction was reasonably pleasant.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:41, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

"A handful of articles with minor issues out of several thousand Laura has created isn't enough for me to think that a ban from Spanish translation would be necessary." Not "out of several thousand", but out of the handful she created most recently. And I don't think claiming that someone works as a lecturer when what is said is that his hobby is reading is a "minor issue". And you don't need to show that every article contains such errors, if the frequency is sufficiently high then that is enough of a problem. Anyway, I have since provided a fair number of examples indicating that while the problem is not restricted to translation errors, it is very widespread nevertheless. Fram (talk) 12:59, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, so long as you tried to speak to her and are convinced that she is genuinely causing a major problem with every article.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:03, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Again, someone doesn't need to be "causing a major problem with every article" to get a restriction. There are major problems with too many articles, but that doesn't mean that every article is problematic (nearly all have more minor problems though). As for speaking with her, in the past I had a discussion with her about incorrectly using Spanish sources (on the Flat Bastion Road article), I tried to keep her out of DYKs because she had too many problems there, and there was the DYK discussion of last month regarding a major hook mistake due to an incorrect translation. I didn't have a further discussion on her talk page, having received the impression from those discussions that that would not have been welcomed or fruitful at all. Before the note about the December DYK discussion, the last time I went to her talk page was to inform her of the deletion discussion for Template:2012 Australian Paralympic Ski Team, which she had created. Fram (talk) 14:36, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

So, is it your proposal now that Laura Hale be banned from Misplaced Pages for incompetence? Since your first proposal is failing, is it wise to go long? Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:52, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

No, I am further researching her contributions, and encounter further major issues, some directly related to the original post, some more tangential but not less problematic. Any thoughts on how to resolve this are welcome, but I no longer think that simply restricting her use of Spanish source will be sufficient (nor the help of editors who have a better knowledge of Spanish and are willing to help). It seems to be a more general problem with her editing, as seen in the above examples and in the comments of people who noticed the same when she was working on articles for Australian athletes. Mentoring may be a possibility. Requiring her to go through AfC, which was recently imposed on another long-term contributor, is also possible. Letting her continue as before is also a possibility, but I fail to see why nyone would support that. Fram (talk) 14:59, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Has there been an RFC/U? Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:12, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Has there been any somewhat successful RfC/U on any well-established editor in the last few years? Fram (talk) 15:39, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

That probably depends on what one means by success: 1)Identifying the problems? 2) having a good discussion about it? 3) leading to mutual understanding? 4)leading to resolution? or 5) leading to a basis for further action? Some have probably had some success in some of those areas but not in others. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:53, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Whoever suggested that Laura didn't aware of this or calling it "serious lack of AGF" should give their head a little shake. During the discussion in DYK last month, it already mentioned Spanish issue. That's sufficient to say that she's been given notice (or warning, depending on how you see it) to be careful with it. OhanaUnited 19:46, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I see merit in an RfC/U, mainly because discussions like this end up in a wall of text which discourages passers-by. I have noticed her name pop up in a few discussions like this, and I think it is worth a well-structured RfC with all the evidence in one place (sorry Fram). I have not looked into her editing myself as have been busy elsewhere but this seems to be popping up frequently enough it needs some sort of more formal resolution one way or the other. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:49, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Now I looked into her last created page (Jan 4), and reported the results at her talk page. On top of the awkward prose (which I may be wrong about as a non-native English speaker) I found at least four issues, some of which might originate from a bad translation, and others presumably from elsewhere. Based on this analysis, (i) I believe we have indeed a problem here; (ii) a topic ban as suggested is not an appropriate solution, and I do not knwo what would be appropriate. Possibly RFC/U is for now the best course of action. There we can discuss problems, and, hopefully together with Laura, find the best way to address them. If somebody things that one randomly taken article for whatever reason is not representative please let me know, I can do a couple of more (it took me about an hour to handle this article).--Ymblanter (talk) 21:05, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

This thread is a perfect example of what's wrong with Admin noticeboards, and why I am very reluctant to bring any problem to them. Anyone with any negative feelings about an editor, from any time in the history of Misplaced Pages, is free to leap in with irrelevant negative bullshit that shouldn't but does build an even bigger negative image of the accused for the case at hand. Those who join this massive pile-on of mud suffer no negative consequences themselves. The real case gets buried in crap. Misplaced Pages's justice systems stink! HiLo48 (talk) 21:18, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Template:Uninvolvededitor This thread is too involved for me to jump in at this point, but you need to seriously tone it down, HiLo48. Erpert 01:32, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Why? Is what I said not true? HiLo48 (talk) 01:42, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that is a systematic problem with the way the dramaboards work. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:20, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• This needs to end (support ban). There have been enough language and other problems with articles User:LauraHale has been writing on Spanish paralympians. Fram drafted the original complaint in November 2012 that didn't fly; she was reprimanded at DYK in early December 2013 for her now infamous "Did you know... that 2006 Spanish Paralympic alpine skier Daniel Caverzaschi was ranked 20th in the world in wheelchair tennis in October 2013?". At that time she offered her excuses and promised to be more vigilant. Her skills in Spanish are clearly not up to it, and I had suggested she voluntarily stop using machine translations. She said that she had a pool of Spanish-speakers she could call upon, but I don't see any efficacy in that from the results demonstrated hereinabove. I also see no embarrassment, contrition, nor sense that she admits to anything but a bit of carelessness. She has so far kept to her talk page, it seems that she is deliberately ducking this discussion although she was duly warned, hoping that others might think that she hasn't been adequately warned and that it will go away if she keeps a lower profile. Whilst she admits to some basic human failings, she casts Fram as the bogeyman, probably hoping that the messenger would get shot instead of her.

  Fram was persistently on the back of another editor whom I (and many others) thought was close to God. They spotted the early warning signs, but it was only much later and after escalating problems that the community later realised the legitimacy of Fram's concerns and banned/blocked said editor. Although I would like to see enthusiastic editors get the benefit of the doubt, I'd say that the assumption of goodwill is wearing mighty thin. IMHO, Fram is again spot on. I hope that the community realises sooner, rather than later, that Laura is becoming a menace and needs to immediately stop, or be stopped from, using sources in a language that she does not have full mastery of. It's time for a zero tolerance approach to Laura's continued incompetence and blame game. Let it be made clear at the same time that if her "typos" (particularly when numbers get mistyped, transposed or otherwise mis-stated) are a matter of continuing concern with her work, that the community will ban her from using a keyboard to contribute to Misplaced Pages. I don't know if she realises she may lose her job if she gets banned from WP for any length of time, but so be it. -- Ohc  02:18, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• Is that what this is about? Targeting her employment? I did wonder above why Fram brought that into it. I'm sure something similar came up in a past arbcom case. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:55, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• It's not "targeting her employment". You got it the other way around, as she seems to be using Misplaced Pages to further her own ends. But note that she's not doing her "employers" any favours either with the very blatant errors she is committing. Oh, I wonder how they would react if they knew the truth... -- Ohc  03:02, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• That seems like a pretty serious allegation. Do you have any evidence for it? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not interested in dishing out any dirt. Go look elsewhere. -- Ohc  03:25, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose from editor 9,600 mi / 15,400 km from Australia. As previously noted, concerns should be discussed with editors before raising them on AN or ANI. NE Ent 03:04, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. There is good evidence on both sides, but not good enough to merit a topic ban, and yes, I looked at the diffs. Viriditas (talk) 06:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support, part of along-term pattern. Graham87 08:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support - this is a long-term issue with this user not confined to DYK, but which also extends to GAC and FAC. I cannot in good conscience oppose this topic-ban when this user continuously flouts editorial process and shows a lack of discipline in their editing. Quality not quantity. When a user focuses on the creation of poorly-reviewed, poorly-sourced and poorly-written content, there exists a problem. James • 9:27pm • 10:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support per James above. Andreas JN466 23:05, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support Compelling evidence that suggests long-term poor QA & disregard for community concerns. 94.194.24.46 (talk) 02:11, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - The above anonymous IP seems dubious...New anonynympus IP account that from his summary comments HERE seems to know his way around WP extremely well. Dubious? Yes. Maybe even a disengenuous sockpuppet perhaps? Mercy11 (talk) 18:23, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• Since Laura has declined to participate in this thread or in further conversation about her sourcing/article creation habits, I support this proposal with a wrinkled nose, though I prefer Tony's "Formal Proposal" below as a way to handle Spanish issues, and I'm beginning to wonder whether some sort of overarching article creation probation may be needed as well based on evidence people are surfacing here. Per the evidence given by other users, it seems that the trouble is more in Laura's article-creation QA than in her Spanish skills in particular, but it currently seems to be leaking out mostly in Spanish-related articles. Topic-banning Laura entirely from Spanish-source-using is therefore using a hammer that's a bit too blunt for my taste, but I'd take this option over no restriction at all. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 03:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose It’s the job of the DYK team to check the quality of the work that is published. This witch-hunt is trying to mask their own incompetence. See also WP:SOFIXIT. Lugnuts 07:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
  • This is not solely about DYKs though, many of her articles are never submitted for DYK. And DYK is not a substitute for fat checking, editors are responsible for the content they produce, blaming the errors on the reviewers is ignoring the initial problem completely. Fram (talk) 11:05, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
    • "Fat-checking"? Haha. Brilliant. Lugnuts 14:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Premature. It looks far too much like a grudge match from those who oppose her work for other reasons - merely identifying possibly valid issues isn't enough excuse to ignore cornerstone principles and jump straight to the Wikilawyering. I'm not endorsing the content produced in saying this - Laura clearly needs to work on some things, but I believe reasonably communicating with her on these and perhaps having someone who's stronger in Spanish-English translation being available for her to speak to would likely solve the problems. If it doesn't, well, that's a matter for the future. I just think as someone that's been around a while (coming up to my 8-year anniversary) that Misplaced Pages has tended in a more Wiki-litigious and punitive direction when people are trying to contribute positively, it's a lot tougher to be a newbie or developing editor now than when I joined. Orderinchaos 08:33, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
  • But LauraHale clearly isn't a "newbie or developing editor" anymore. Fram (talk) 11:05, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
• I'm also in favour of the ban per what I said earlier. OhanaUnited 18:09, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per what I and others have said earlier. Moreover, appears resolved below (per Hale and The Rambling Man cmmts). On other issues: 1) RfC/U has been noted as an option, not overly blunt and ill-fitting topic bans. 2) It was wise of Hale not to respond earlier, while the OP was going '... and another thing ... and another thing ... and another thing'; 3) If you have not even tried to talk to someone about a ban proposal against them before coming to AN, don't bring it here; 4) Punishing the User for past Australian sins is not a good or even decent basis for this ban; 5) Hale should act upon some of the sound advice she is getting in the area of QA -- most people do not like to clean-up, when the maker does not appear to care. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:15, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support - idea of editing encyclopedia using sources in language that you don't understand is already quite surreal on its own, doing so in BLPs just makes it much worse. Frankly its even questionable should she be editing BLPs at all as thinking that google translate is sufficient indicates quite serious attitude problem.--Staberinde (talk) 18:11, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose ridiculous proposal for a topic ban. Such a wide-ranging topic ban is a serious and major penalty for a content creator, and should require - at the very least - prior discussion of the problem on the target's talk page. None of that happened here. What should happen is that, if the complainants are really seriously concerned about Laura's editing, not just following up past disputes and the like, they should take the time to open an RfC/U so that this can be discussed properly. The unwillingness to do that (there's been plenty of opportunity now) is an indication of how bad faith this is. Oh, and the "hey perhaps she could get fired from her job" people need some blocks laying down on them. There's already been an arbcom case on the last editor that used that tactic against Laura, it's not rocket science. (I did give them an opportunity to retract - above.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:26, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - come on people, there are a lot of people who are contributing here with a limited knowledge of English, but are still able to contribute. If we start topic banning editors from using sources in languages that people perceive them to not be able to understand, then we are going to massively limit our non-native English content's creation and maintenance. Although there is evidence here that Laura cannot understand Spanish, and she possibly should avoid using those sources, to enact this topic ban would be a bad precedent. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:04, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

More evidence

Yesterday, I noted how she removed correct pertinent information in these edits: the article stated correctly that José Manuel González had participated and won medals in the 1992 Paralympics, but LauraHale removed this for unknown reasons.

Picking other articles she created on Spanish Paralympians randomly, I came across two table tennis players, Tomas Pinas and Álvaro Valera. The sentence "He played table tennis at the 2004 Summer Paralympics, 2008 Summer Paralympics, 2012 Summer Paralympics and the 2012 Summer Paralympics." (with the repeat of the 2012 Games) appeared in both articles, which caught my eye. Looking further, it appears quite strongly that she copied the (at first glance basically correct, despite two different birthdates) Pinas article to create the Valera article, and couldn't be bothered to do even the most basic checks. The result is that the Valera article starts with "Alvaro Valera Muñoz-Vargas (born October 16, 1982 in Seville) is a Class 3 table tennis athlete from Spain." (Pinas is a Class-3 athlete, Valera is a Class-6 to Class-8 athlete), and that his main achievements include "In 2008, he finished third in the Class 3 singles table tennis game. In 2008, he finished third in the Class 7 men's singles.", which would be a unique combination. Obviously, the first bronze medal was Pinas', not Valera's.

To add insult to injury, by copying the Pinas article, who started participating in 2004, she somehow missed that Valera also competed in the 2000 Paralympics, where he won a gold medal. So she wrote an article where she categorized a Paralympian in the wrong category, awarded him the wrong medal, and omitted the most important of his participations and medals. Fram (talk) 09:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Trying to find a source that says he competed in 1992 paralympics - not used to looking for stuff like this....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:10, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

The most authoritative, , search for surname:Gonzalez and first name:Jose Manuel in "Athlete search", and you get all the results. Here he is listed as one of seven Spanish athletes to compete in the 1992 and 2012 Paralympics. This page from the Asturian Radio and Television lists him as participating in 1992, 1996, and so on. Seems pretty conclusive to me. Not really a "typo or other minor problem"... Fram (talk) 10:51, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. Take a look at these five pages:

• Antonio Delgado Palomo: born March 26, 1962 (created by LauraHale 11:19, 30 October 2013‎): 14 years old at the time of his Paralympics
• Julio Gutierrez García: born March 26, 1962 (created by LauraHale 12:14, 30 October 2013‎‎): 14 years old at the time of his Paralympics
• Eloy Guerrero Asensio: born March 26, 1962 (created by LauraHale 12:16, 30 October 2013‎): 14 years old at the time of his Paralympics
• José Santos Poyatos: born March 26, 1962 (created by LauraHale 16:39, 30 October 2013‎): 14 years old at the time of his Paralympics
• Francisco Benitez: born March 26, 1962 (created by LauraHale 10:36, 6 November 2013): 10 years old at the time of his Paralympics

Every single article created by LauraHale needs thorough fact checking for even the most basic facts. These are not occasional mistakes; this is a systematic lack of applying the minimal care that can be expected before posting something to the mainspace. We all make mistakes, but I have rarely encountered someone who does this so frequently and fundamentally, and gets away with it. Fram (talk) 10:44, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Made any attempt to fix those pages? No, didn't think so. Lugnuts 09:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

And your point is...? Are you going to check and correct all her pages? Have you checked or corrected even one of them? I have, but I'm not going to do all of them, and certainly not if nothing is done to prevent a further influx of similar problems. Have you actually looked at WP:SOFIXIT before linking to it? The second section is WP:RECKLESS. Fram (talk) 10:51, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I did . What is your point please?--Ymblanter (talk) 11:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

My point is that you'd rather sit here and bitch about it, rather than do anything. Carry on. With doing nothing. Lugnuts 11:23, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I am trying to do something about it. You don't. You prefer people creating hundreds articles riddled with errors (and worse, removing correct basic information from articles), and other editors cleaning up after them time and time again? That seems a rather unproductive way to proceed. Fram (talk) 11:33, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

No, you're not doing anything. Just blaming others and not doing any real work. Like most fireguards on here. Lugnuts 14:40, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

The next one I worked on was almost fine, just some mess with the references (which is unfortunately now a common sight even for English language sources and otherwise good and productive editors).--Ymblanter (talk) 09:10, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Formal proposal

In view of the ongoing damage to the project being caused by Laura Hale's insufficient knowledge of the Spanish language and her poor editorial practices, any article text she creates and/or edits that is derived from Spanish-language sources should be worked on first in a sandbox, and be transferred into mainspace only when endorsed as acceptable by at least one editor from each of the following classes—those with sufficient skills in:

1. both Spanish and English, to review and endorse each of her translated texts; and
2. English, to review the quality of the prose.

This proposal, which I suggest should be a 90-day trial, would involve Laura Hale's informing AN of the editors who have agreed to do this, and a dated signature on the sandbox talkpage declaring that a version is acceptable for transfer to mainspace in each respect (1 and 2 above). Her progress would be reviewed at AN after the 90-day period.

The alternative would be to ban her use of any non-English-language sources. Tony (talk) 02:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, This is actually a second formal proposal. The first one, which seems not to enjoy consensus, was the one started by Fram above "I would like to propose..." --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I have previously mentioned on numerous occasions at DYK that I would be glad to check any DYK using Spanish-language sources. Having said that, I am not available to work for Laura Hale or to check her DYKs; considering the extremely poor quality of her work and the long-standing problems, I don't understand why she hasn't been topic banned from DYK. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:18, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• I would support Tony's proposal as a first choice iff we or she can line up editors before the close of this thread to be Laura's "designated checkers". Passing a sanction that says she has to have her work evaluated, without having anyone on hand who says they'll evaluate it, is setting us up for Laura either never being able to create an article again (due to lack of reviewers), or deciding to sneak articles in the backdoor just to see them published (due to impatience). A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 03:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
• I also have reservations about setting up a complex machinery to follow one rogue editor's work. And although I would have supported simply banning her from using any non-English source in articles she contributes to, it seems that the problems are not so much her ability to grasp Spanish, but more down to her general inability to contribute responsibly and with due care. But something needs to be done. -- Ohc  06:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - seems excessive given the relatively small scale of the problem being described. Also seems to set up an unnecessary hierarchy. Orderinchaos 08:36, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Why not juwt ban her from translating? Or from misleading translations? Not to be ultratechy, but is using a type of source really a topic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Howunusual (talk • contribs) 14:32, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• Echoing Ohconfucius and SandyGeorgia above. Andreas JN466 01:37, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Statement by LauraHale

I apologize for not responding earlier. As someone who has created over 1,200 articles,, I am sure that there are a number of typos and some other minor problems with my work. Perfection is not required to contribute to Misplaced Pages. The issue of potential problems was first brought to my attention in early December 2013, and I responded on December 4 to affirm that I would be more careful with my use of Spanish sources to try to insure better understanding of the source material. Most of the examples brought up here have pre-dated this committment, and I do not think there has been any demonstration of systematic problems since that commitment. I have repeatedly and privately asked for people to assist me with translations since that time on IRC, via e-mail and in person. I stand by that commitment from early December to make sure that my understanding of Spanish sources is more accurate and I am daily working to improve my own Spanish speaking skills. I would be more than happy to accept a six month requirement that before I move any article to the main space that heavily relies on Spanish language sources, that it be vetted by a native language Spanish speaker who has read all the sources and checked the accuracy of my text against the article, and then have that person comment on the draft article talk page before moving it. --LauraHale (talk) 08:45, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Good enough. Move along here, nothing else to see. Lugnuts 09:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

"Typos and other minor problems"? Have you looked at the evidence (e.g. in the section "more evidence")? And these are not from your full list of 1,200 articles, these are all from articles from the last few months, including multiple serious issues within the last dozen articles you created. Downplaying the percenatge of problems and the seriousness of them in one go gives the strong impression that you don't realize (or don't want to admit) what the actual issues are. Perhaps you can show for the next six months that you can create accurate articleson English-language sources, before we let you back near sourcs in other languages? Fram (talk) 10:30, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Waa-waa-waaa, this poridge is too hot. Give it a rest. Lugnuts 11:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Any reason why you are trying to turn this into a childish and uncivil discussion? If you can't behave like an adult, go find some other playground. Fram (talk) 11:35, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

No personal attacks please. You should know better. Again, hiding behind your own failures rather than fixing the articles in question. Lugnuts 14:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't want to get involved in whether or not there should be formal bans or any other action, and I have no doubt that @LauraHale: is a valuable contributor and asset to the project; also if the issue is in hand as of 4 December 2013 than that's great. Just to say, though, that having read the above I would like to add my support to the request that Laura should be a bit more careful about making sure facts are correct, and not being flippant or dismissive when concerns are raised. The lack of necessity for WP:PERFECTION is of course an important part of the project, allowing for people who aren't brilliant writers or who just have sketchy information on a subject, but it is certainly not a licence to indiscriminately write factually incorrect material in articles in the hope that someone else will clean them up afterwards. The case of the five paralympians mentioned above seems a classic example of this. They all show the same date of birth, which I assume is not correct for all of them, a situation which could have easily been avoided with more rigorous checking of the text before or after hitting the save button. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 10:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

If you want further examples of translation problems (and general sloppy editing) which happened since 4 December, take a look at these three, made within the space of twenty minutes on 24 December 2013: , , and . "the Championship of Spain by Autonomous Open Paralympic Swimming"? Let's see, that very strangely named tournament is the "Campeonato de España Open por Autonomías de Natación Paralímpica", which even Google Translate translates better than you do ("Open Championship of Spain by autonomous Paralympic Swimming"). What is meant is the "Open Paralympic Swimming Championship of Spain by Autonomous Community" ("Autonomías" being the Autonomous communities of Spain). Not a major problem, but not really an indication that anything has improved since 4 December. Oh, and of course the inevitable copy-paste error needs to be included; Alejandro Sanchez Palomero: "In 2013, he competed in the Championship of Spain by Autonomous Open Paralympic Swimming where she represented the Balearic Islands." If you change one "she" to a "he" in a sentence, it's best to change the other one as well, to avoid strange results. Fram (talk) 11:30, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I think we've established that Laura makes many errors and needs to take more care before moving articles to the mainspace, but correct me if I'm wrong, above she has volunteered to a six-month embargo on moving any article translated from Spanish to the mainspace before being vetted by a native Spanish language editor. That seems like a good solution without dragging up more and more of this (which I'm not sure is benefitting anyone). For what it's worth, I'm happy to volunteer to vet these from an English-speaking perspective to knock Fram's most recent concern on the head. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

A six-month ban from DYK nomination is also in order, until we can be sure that her editorial practices have improved significantly. Tony (talk) 12:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Well presumably that isn't necessary if the new articles she nominates have to be double-vetted? And User:Lugnuts does make a valid point, if these DYKs are getting to the mainpage, it's an indictment of the DYK review process as much as Laura's editing skills. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:30, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem with such a page-vetting by one or two people for the next months. I'm just worried by her apparent dismissal of the number and seriousness of the problems her articles have. But I assume that either she will improve her work, or the "vetters" will make it clear what is wrong with it, and that in six months time we will have a much better view of the situation and way forward. Thank you for the offer to check the articles. Fram (talk) 14:41, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Goodness, who is Lugnuts? Grow up. On a more serious note, it's possible that Spanish Paralympic Committee might know of this very public thread. We should proceed with that in mind. Tony (talk) 03:01, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

He happens to be the most productive film editor on wikipedia Tony, and in my experience of him he generally has a fair outlook on most things.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:37, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

More to the point - who the hell are you? Have you fixed any of these articles, or are you too busy back-slapping your lynch-mob buddies? It's not the former, if you're struggling with that one. Lugnuts 18:36, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

So, Lugnuts, what do you think about ? Recent LauraHale article, not yet introduced in this discussion, again contains rather blatant errors. I corrected this one (well, I removed the most obvious errors, can't promise that there aren't any others left), but I'm really not going to spend dozens (hundreds?) of hours checking and correcting all the others, and certainly not when nothing is done to stop the influx of new ones at the same time. Any constructive comments about this whole situation? Fram (talk) 17:39, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I say, holy shit! Fram actually fixed something. Wow. Sorry I didn't reply earlier, I was busy adding content. I see you've still doing nothing about the Francisco Benitez article you linked to earlier. I'm sure another witch-hunt got in the way. Oh well. Lugnuts 15:48, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Jesus wept. The evidence is overwhelming, as they say... Somebody put us out of misery, please. -- Ohc  08:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Why in this whole thread has the fact that these are BLPs not even entered the discussion? Did that policy expire in 2013? Ultra Venia (talk) 20:40, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. It also seems like someone at the WMF needs a smack to back of their head for officially supporting (paying?) someone (cf. "Wikimedian in Residence" status) to write about topics that normally require competence in a foreign language, when said competence is clearly lacking. Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

@Someone not using his real name: Whoa, wait. What did we do? We're not paying her. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 04:06, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

No, you didn't. But some thinking on and clarification of the status of Wikipedians/Wikimedians in Residence may be useful? At the moment, it seems like these positions are mostly self-declared, organised between the institution and the editor, without any intervention, help, support, or "seal of approval" from the WMF. But the title "Wikipedian in Residence", and the pages about it on Wikimedia and Misplaced Pages, gives the implicit impression that these are "official", WMF-approved positions, where some vetting of the candidates or soemthing similar is done. As far as I know, this isn't true at all. Creating some clear separation between WMF and the Residents may be useful (or alternatively doing some vetting and restricting the position/title to those who the WMF have approved). Fram (talk) 08:31, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

The press, where it comments on the title at all, describes (recent example) the title thus; "Wikipedian is the term used for the people who write and edit the pages of the site". Doesn't seem particularly misleading to me. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:44, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

And the same article indicates that it (not the "Wikipedian", but the "Wikipedian in Residence") is done in collaboration with Wikimedia UK, making it look like an official position, not something an editor does on his own... Fram (talk) 11:54, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

...but not an official position of the WMF. While the WMF do a lot of things (we're even responsible for Anne Murray) your complaint is not with the WMF, it's with the chapters - that is, you probably want to be objecting at the organisations that have Wikipedians in Residence, as opposed to the ones that don't. It's not the Foundation's job to resolve problems caused by individual chapters. Ironholds (talk) 20:05, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Ironholds, I didn't claim that it is an official position of the WMF, I said that they are "without any intervention, help, support, or "seal of approval" from the WMF.", but that the title "gives the implicit impression that these are "official", WMF-approved positions", aided by pages like or , the latter of which makes it clear that "Wikipedian in Residence" is a title that entitles you for "requests for resources" more than regular users apparently. The WMF is sending out a very unclear message, and I asked for clarification, not for intervention. Fram (talk) 08:11, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Have no position on LauraHale, or Spanish Paralympic medalists, or <grin> intrinsicly-blameworthy entities... but do have a position on whether the WMF is properly involved here or not, as an implicit supporter of Wikipedian-in-Residence folks. Misplaced Pages is a trademark of the foundation; it is the global brand, which represents the efforts of all concerned. The chapters do not have carte blanche to use the trademark as they see fit (cf Misplaced Pages: The Shaving Cream). And moreover, the WMF has the explicit legal requirement to exercise quality control over the use of their legally-owned trademarks (held in trust for DahCommuhnity™). Prolly the noticeboards is not the place for a discussion of how much control the WMF folks ought exercise over the chapters, or over individual wikipedians, that wish to call themselves or their activities something official-sounding. The appellation of wikipedian *is* at present extremely broad, and ought be, methinks. But the WMF does give the implicit seal of approval to all uses of the WMF trademarks, and I'd like to see a bit more thought put into global-branding-issues like this. See meta:Trademark_policy for the proposed 2014 rulz. Hope this helps. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:04, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Independently of the topic ban question, I'd urge Laura to slow down and edit more carefully. I always cringe when I hear someone created 1200 articles, since it sounds like a trainwreck in progress. Misplaced Pages has too much history of whackamole bot rampages, copyvio sprees affecting 1000's of articles, or in this case bad translations, for "so-and-so created 1200 articles" to produce any good feelings from where I sit. The use of automated translation tools is another scary sign. It's much better to write 12 really good articles, or even just 1, than 1200 that are automatically suspect just by their quantity. 50.0.121.102 (talk) 07:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• "I'd urge Laura to slow down and edit more carefully... ...affecting 1000's of articles". There's no apostrophe on 1000s. I urge you slow down and edit more carefully. I have 16,000+ page creations to my name - happy for you to check every single one if you like. Lugnuts 12:10, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

IP Block exemption request

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

Could someone please comment on my request for an IP block exemption User talk:Slawekb. I'm getting the run-around on what should really be a very routine matter. (If my request is not routine, then an administrator needs to update the default edit notice that I see, since I've been following exactly the procedure outlined there.) Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't see a current request there. Nor do I see a history of unblock requests due to underlying IP blocks. I do see a semi-retired banner at the top. Am I missing something? ES&L 17:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) 2 editors in good standing have asked you to reveal what block you're being affected by. Per Misplaced Pages:IP block exemption not all editors or administrators can see why you might be cought in an IP block. They're trying to help you by looking for quick-fail reasons that you might be denied prior to going to checkuser. I consider this a reasonable request, but your refusal to reveal that information cause for not granting the exemption. Also how is this account Slawekb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) tied to Sławomir Biały (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and under what exemption are you claiming the ability to have multiple accounts? Hasteur (talk) 17:44, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

The accounts are fully disclosed and seem all kosher to me. The older account hasn't even been used in like 6 months. I don't think that is at all relevant to the current request. On the matter of the request itself, I have now commented there. Snowolf 17:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

The alternative account is fully disclosed, as snowolf indicates, for reasons specifically mentioned on my user page (essentially the diacritics make it typically easier to use the handle account). If I've violated any rules, I'm willing to be politely corrected on that point. :-) I will provide the IP information as requested, but I am bound to get caught in a similar dragnet again. This is all a bit of a hassle to put users who are in good standing through. Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:12, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

But IPBE is rare ... and only given based on a number of criteria. I don't see where you meet the criteria ES&L 18:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

You are currently unable to edit Misplaced Pages.

You are still able to view pages, but you are not currently able to edit, move, or create them.

Editing from (redacted) has been blocked (disabled) by DeltaQuad for the following reason(s): Misplaced Pages Checkuser.svg CheckUser evidence has determined that this IP address or network has been used (not necessarily by you) to disrupt Misplaced Pages. It has been blocked from editing to prevent further abuse. If you get this message, please read the following information. Misplaced Pages tries to be open, but we sometimes must block a range of IP addresses or an entire network, to prevent editing by abusers, vandals, or block evaders. These "range blocks" can affect users who have done nothing wrong. If you are a legitimate user, follow the instructions below to edit despite the block. Users who are the intended target of a range block may still appeal the block.

IP users (without an account): If you do not currently have a account and wish to bypass this block, an account can be created to allow you to edit. Please use this form to request an account under your preferred username. In general, these blocks only prevent users who are not logged in from editing; once you are logged in, the block will no longer affect you in any way. It is important that you use an e-mail address issued to you by your ISP, school, or organisation, so we may verify that you are a legitimate user. If using the form, please refer to this block under "comments". If e-mailing, please refer to this block in your message.

Registered users (with an account): You may request IP block exemption to bypass blocks unconnected with you that affect your editing. Post an unblock request to your user talk page.

Administrators: CheckUsers are privy to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not amend or remove this block without consulting a CheckUser. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

This block has been set to expire: 20:48, 23 February 2014.

Even if blocked, you will usually still be able to edit your user talk page and email other editors and administrators.

Now, if there is some secret special sauce to getting these things taken care of, the edit notice really needs to say so. As far as I can tell, I have followed the instructions there. (I also don't see anything at WP:IPBE that suggests that I would not qualify, as this precisely describes my situation.) So, if IPBE aren't handed out to editors in good standing who happen to edit from dynamic IPs that often happen to be blocked, then the procedure needs to be clear and easy how to get unblocked. (I don't really know the difference between the different types of blocks, btw. All I know is that when I log in to Misplaced Pages from home, I find myself unable to edit with the above edit notice.) Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Nobody is suggesting that you do not qualify for an IPBE, or that one may not be given. Only that it is given by checkusers after some research on their part, as no checkuser has commented as of yet, we can only defer to them. We merely offered alternative remedies for your previous situation that we, as administrators, could enact. Snowolf 19:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

That does seem the be ES&L's suggestion to me, but I'm willing to wait for a CU to comment. In any case, the edit notice should probably be updated. It feels based on responses here and on my talk page like Im asking for the moon. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:21, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm reviewing the case. Please, nobody grant IPBE until I check further. NativeForeigner 19:22, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I've archived this section just so that it's easier for people to notice that they shouldn't do anything right this moment. I'm not trying to shut off discussion; please keep discussing below the box, and feel free to add text inside the box as well — I just want to ensure that NativeForeigner's request remain at the bottom of the highlighted area. NativeForeigner, please un-archive it as soon as you're done checking further. Nyttend (talk) 22:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

PS — my edit changed the header, and Writ Keeper had to put it back. I couldn't remember the right code, so I went to another closed section, the one on Jmh649, and copy/pasted things here. I thought I'd removed the new header, Coffee's closing message, etc., but apparently I didn't get quite all of it. Nyttend (talk) 23:05, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Still pending, but won't be for much longer. NativeForeigner 02:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Granted, based on the fact he was behind a hardblock. NativeForeigner 17:40, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Un-closed the discussion, since you've reported back. Nyttend (talk) 23:37, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Community sanctions and block

• Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive825#Community_sanctions:_The_Rambling_Man.2C_Baseball_Bugs.2C_and_Medeis

I recently closed the above per the request at the WP:AN/RFC page.

User:Baseball_Bugs chose to evade the topic ban by posting to the reference desk talk page. And so subsequent to that I have blocked him for 24 hours for ban evasion.

I'm posting here for WP:3PO on both the close and the block.

As a quick note (I need to go deal with RL, but should be back in several hours), in my estimation, while option 1 clearly had overwhelming consensus, when readin the entire discussion, option 2 had consensus as well, though perhaps not as "overwhelming" as option 1. That doesn't make it any less "consensus".

Thank you for taking the time to look this over - jc37 20:08, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I had looked at the number of outright opposes on choice 2, and suggest that there was no actual "clear consensus" there - and that if one reduces the weight given to strongly involved editors (as best practice indicates), "no consensus" or even "no" is the result. One ought not give full weight to the involved editors, and the idea that an edit by Bugs questioning the close is the impetus for "instant block" is not altogether wise. Far better if you had another admin give a block, but since the only "bad edit" by Bugs was one questioning the "consensus" you saw, it looks like you let yourself get far too close to the issue. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:02, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• I am very confused by this. There is an overwhelming consensus for an interaction ban, whether counting all votes or only argued votes. Yet this is reported as a modest consensus. And the topic ban was strongly opposed, at least 2-to-1, whether one counts unargued votes, or votes with comments. This is clear from people opposing any sanctions as draconian and unwarranted, people supporting only sanction 1, and people outright opposing sanction 2. These votes all give reasons against sanction 2. User APL's vote is particularly instructional. With a cursory view, he supported all sanctions, then reversed his support for sanction 2 and commented on his reason for doing so. His crossing out his support for 2 may be unclear unless you enlarge the text and read the matter he appended to the end of his comment. μηδείς (talk) 21:15, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• Jc37, you're probably aware that your call of "consensus" for Option 2 (=that all three editors be topic banned from the Reference Desk) is not self-evidently clear. I'm not saying your call is wrong, but it's certainly debatable. What Baseball Bugs did, once you had notified him about your reading of consensus, was to object to your call concerning Option 2. He posted his objection in three places in rapid succession: on your page, on the Reference desk talkpage immediately below, and with reference to, your "Notice concerning community sanctions",, and on his own page. And for the post on the Reference desk talkpage you have blocked him for 24 hours, for violating his "Reference desk topic ban." I don't think that's a good block. If I'd been you, I'd have overlooked that particular post. I think Baseball Bugs should be unblocked right now, perhaps with a reminder to completely stay off the Reference desk and its talkpage until Jc37's reading of the consensus has been reviewed here.

I don't quite understand your summary of your finding about Option 2, "Has consensus (noting that indefinite is not interminable - especially as there is a criteria for appeal). What criterion for appeal is that? (No, I haven't re-read the entire thread, it's a monster, and really depressing.) Do you mean there's a venue for appeal of those topic bans? Where? It seems to me that BB did appeal his topic ban with his three posts, and that all three of them were in reasonable places for the purpose. Blocking him for using the RD talkpage for such a purpose seems bureaucratic to me. Any more cumbersome type of appeal (and, as I say, I don't even know where it ought to be posted, and perhaps BB doesn't either) would obviously be a bit pointless for a 24-hour block. Come on, unblock him, please. Bishonen | talk 21:24, 15 January 2014 (UTC).

Unblock pending review of close. NE Ent 21:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Ent, unblock pending review. BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 22:18, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

In response to what the last several people have said, I'll be unblocking momentarily, as Bugs didn't violate the ban's prohibitions of editing the Reference Desk or of interacting with the other two. When a topic ban is imposed, it either covers a specific set of pages ("You may not edit page A, page B, page C...") or prohibits the editor from editing pages on the topic and from discussing that topic elsewhere (e.g. "You may not edit anything related to the topic of weather"), aside from processes such as block/ban appeals; moreover, we always specify when someone's prohibited from discussing the ban itself. You closed as successful a proposal that they be "topic-banned from the Reference Desk, indefinitely"; the proposal said nothing about the RD talk page, and your closure included nothing additional. When people are banned from editing specific pages, they are not banned from editing those pages' talk unless the ban specifically says so. Nyttend (talk) 22:27, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

My intention proposing the community sanctions was RD and its talk pages, but if that was ambiguous I support a discussion to determine what people thought it meant. And, separately, I am also surprised by the option 2 consensus, though I think it was a good idea. We're sort of vague on how we "count" !votes when someone Supports 1 and says nothing explicitly about 2 and 3, for example. Are those assumed neutral on 2 and 3, or oppose on 2 and 3, or what? I have tended to assume conservatively (an implicit no). All of this said, as the proposer, I think others should be primary on the review. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:16, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I think its quite clear that a commenter who supports option #1 is implicitly saying that they do not support the other options - or else why mention only one of the options? Still, I'm glad my !vote said explicitly "Support #1 only", and I advise all commenters in all future !votes anywhere on Misplaced Pages to do the same, to avoid exactly this kind of thing. BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 00:36, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Following myself up, but... Thank you, Jc37 for having spent the time to review and close it. That was necessary and is much appreciated. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:23, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for unblocking. I will stay totally away from the ref desk until this case is fully settled. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:15, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• A few thoughts:
  • If there was consensus for Option 2, I really think it is clear that the talk page and all sub-pages of the RD are included, per very clear wording at WP:Topic ban. I don't think a whole new discussion is needed to arrive at that fact.
  • The thing is, I have a very hard time seeing a consensus for Option 2. Well, no, that's too gently worded. I do not think there was a consensus for Option 2. I cringe at the idea of yet another discussion about this (the equivalent, I guess, of a DRV), so I'd ask @Jc37:, please review the comments in the archived ANI discussion and consider changing the close for Option 2. Otherwise, I feel a DRV-ish discussion somewhere (here, I suppose) would be reasonable.
  • I despise myself already for saying this, and will surely burn in CREEP hell for it, but... instead of relying on common sense, we should probably come up with some kind of standard way for someone subject to a topic ban or interaction ban to (a) appeal the ban, and (b) report a violation of the interaction ban by the other party. I already see TRM flirting with a violation on his user page, and BB's complaint about that is being reverted as a violation of the IB as well.

--Floquenbeam (talk) 00:20, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

We got that (appeals; appeals go here WP:AN or WP:AC. NE Ent 03:58, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for unblocking, Nyttend. I suppose it does need to be clarified whether or not people thought it was GWH's intent to include the RD talkpage in the topic ban. (Groan… these discussions get more fine-drawn and labyrinthine by the day. Yes, you will burn in CREEP hell, Floquenbeam.) But I don't think it matters as far as the 24-hour block of Bugs is concerned. For my part, I assumed that Jc37's topic ban did cover the RD talkpage, but thought the block was bad all the same. See my post above. Collect's comment seems very reasonable to me, though I will surely burn in letting-the-side-down hell for saying such a thing. Bishonen | talk 00:48, 16 January 2014 (UTC).

• jc37's declaration of the ban wasn't very good; the closing admin should make a clear, explicit statement of the terms and scope of the ban on the user's talk page, not a reference to "#2" on that page. Bureaucracy no, clarity yes. NE Ent 03:58, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

• I would like to think consensus requires a sort of quorum where a certain portion of those weighing in have to weigh in on a specific issue in question for there to be any valid determination of consensus on that issue. Here you did not have a decent quorum to justify any finding of consensus with regards to the topic ban. When so few people commenting on a series of proposed sanctions mention a specific one, their silence should be considered a strong sign of a sanction not having sufficient support to pass. Even then, I feel there was more than enough opposition to the sanction expressed that any finding of consensus for the sanction would be completely nonsensical. Clearly the interaction ban had consensus, but that is the only consensus for a sanction I saw in that discussion.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:04, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, rather than get lost in the threading above, I'll try to respond here. I'm hoping to avoid tl;dr, but we'll see : )

First thank you to those of you who did WP:AGF, and were requesting clarification.

I've responded to Medeis's request for clarification on their talk page, and I think it should answer much of what I see above concerning the closure. And as for the block, please see User talk:Nyttend#Note about unblock.

That said, I think I should reiterate something: When saying something has consensus, I was presuming that all would understand that that means that it has consensus to be enacted. I am rather surprised that it is suggested that could be interpreted in any other way and thus engender actual confusion. And second, I'd like to respectfully request that you each please re-read WP:BAN. The policy and practices you're looking for are there as far as I can tell. I wasn't aware that I needed to re-summarise WP:BAN in a close, but I'll think about considering that in the future.

And finally, to try to be as clear as possible. If some truly uninvolved editor feels that they now wish to close the discussion, please feel free. You (completely uninvolved editor) are welcome to revert the close partially, fully, or fabricate completely out of whole cloth. One of the benefits of being uninvolved, is that I really don't care that much. My care is only concerning the encyclopedia in this case. And I daresay none would argue that the was not consensus that what the commenters clearly saw as disruption at the reference desk pages needed to stop. But who knows, I also thought that the rest of the close was fairly obvious. And in that at least I was apparently mistaken, if only having that impression from reading the above. - jc37 07:10, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I think from looking at the discussion (and noting I was involved), that saying there was a consensus for option #2 was what Sir Humphrey might have described as a "courageous" decision. With that said, Baseball Bugs' raising the stakes by posting on the ref desk talkpage concerning the ban, when there are plenty of less drama-prone ways to do it, was certainly not a smooth move either. Vigourous troutings all around are called for, I think. Lankiveil 11:15, 16 January 2014 (UTC).

• So, how do we--how do I--proceed on this? I think it's clear from the comments above that a finding of consensus for option two is unsupported. Jc37 has explained that he did not take into account votes that supported only option one as implicitly opposing option 2. But even then, and looking only at votes where justifying comments were given, the total of votes opposed to any sanctions: 6 and votes opposed to sanction two or in favor of only sanction one: 11 far outweigh the total of votes in favor of sanction two: 8.

Again, I would draw attention to comments such as APL's "(Edit: Looking more closely, I notice that Medeis makes a significant number of apparently useful contributions to the Language desk. So I've struck my support for #2.) APL (talk)" in response to Doc9871's suggestion that criticisms should be based on diffs. Indeed, the lack of rationale for sanction two and evidence to back it up is striking. There's the question of what harm this topic ban prevents. The ref desk is mentioned here only because it was the venue of TRM's name-calling disputes with me and Bugs. An interaction ban solves that problem. A topic ban seems only punitive in this context.

At this point I feel like a defendant left sitting at the bench while the judge and lawyers are out chatting in the hall. I ask that if someone here has the ability to reverse the judgment of consensus on sanction two in regards to not only myself, but Bugs and The Rambling Man as well, that they please do so. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 19:34, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

No one's commented on Medeis' quite reasonable request for the past six hours since he posted it. I think it would be good, given the comments above, for the proposal to be re-closed with only Option #1, the IBAN between BB, Medeis and TRM, being the only accepted part of GWH's overall proposal. Jc37 said the response was sufficient to implement that, but his implementation of Option #2 has met with considerable dissension, and Option #3 is a non-starter. So... will a non-involved admin please close this with Option #1, the mutual IBAN between the parties implemented, or does a non-admin have to jump in and do the job and cause all sorts of chaos in the process? BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 07:37, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Update: In case it wasn't noticed, I've attempted to clarify the close after reading comments here, and a discussion at User talk:Nyttend. Please see also User:Medeis's talk page, and User:Baseball Bugs's talk page (history as it's been blanked) and User:The Rambling Man's talk page as well. - jc37 07:51, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Forgive me if I've missed it, but I don't believe any of these comments addresses the question of Option #2, whch was closed as having a consensus, but about which the commentators I am aware of have said that there is no actual consensus for. Did I miss something? BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 10:51, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

• A reason it's important for an admin notifying an editor of ban to conditions is that WP:: pages are not static -- if an editor is WP:IBANned, and WP:IBAN is the updated to reflect a new community consensus, it would not be a worthwhile use of resources to wikilawyer over whether the terms at time of imposition applied, or whether the current terms of the WP: page would. A declaration of terms on the user page is just simpler. NE Ent 11:17, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, if this interaction ban (option 1) has been enforced, why is one of those banned allowed to now post here, once again commenting on my behaviour, in direct contravention of the interaction ban ("These bans include article, talk, wikipedia, and user space, without exception. No mention of the others or their actions shall be permitted")? See "the venue of TRM's name-calling disputes " above. This is a violation of the ban (that everyone seemed to agree upon). Or does the ban no longer apply in certain circumstances? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:22, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

This is a proper venue, with a discussion started by the closer of the discussion, Jc37 - thus it is proper for anyone to weigh in on the correctness of the close. If people were banned from such a discussion, we would have a lovely catch-22 situation. Meanwhile, your forumshopping to Jc37 seeking to have one party blocked for posting at what likely is a proper venue is weird, and as being in an improper venue is more likely to be a violation. And the "clarification" was posted after the post about which you complain in any case (Jc37 posted it at 20:09 16 Jan, notifying Medeis at 20:16 on 16 Jan while the post you cavil about was at 19:34 on 16 Jan -- making it quite unlikely that the first poster had already seen the later post) Tachyons do not exist. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:55, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

So, to clarify, this venue is fine to continue discussing each other's behaviour, as per above? I asked jc37 to enforce the sanctions he had imposed, what's wrong with that? Moreover, this was with regard to proposal 1 which has not been argued against by anyone. The clarification was only regarding proposal 2. Are you saying the leave to appeal clause allows all editors in question to continue to debate other editor's behaviour? It's unclear to me. If so, then I'd like to provide more evidence as to why proposal 2 has been correctly enacted. By the way, there is no Catch 22, we just have to wait the minimum time in each proposal before we can appeal. Otherwise what is the point of that clause as well? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:43, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I said nothing of the sort -- the clarification that the ban applied to all pages was made after Medeis' post, therefore it would be a catch-22 to sanction her for what would normally have been accepted practice -- that the noticeboard on which the admin who closed the case specifically asked for input would normally be a place to give such input. Sanctioning people for something they were not notified of until after they posted would not be quite cricket. You, on the other hand, not only posted here but also at the admin's talk page in a wonderful example of WP:FORUMSHOPPING seeking to have Medeis sanctioned for something he could not have known about sans tachyon technology, and you iterate it now. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:22, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

what? The clarification on the sanctions applied to 2 only. Therefore there should be no discussions of each other's behaviour per the unchanged proposal 1. No time travel require for that. Are you suggesting I am allowed to discuss the other two's behaviour here with regard to proposal 2? Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

The clarification effectively applied to the entire closure - as it is in the clarification that "all pages" is given, and that was after the initial posts here. Meanwhile I fear that you seem to be WP:Wikilawyering in a losing cause. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:41, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I fear you have realised your error. The clarification on no way had any effect on proposal 1. Which is the clause violated above. Your time machine will have to wait. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:43, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

(ec x3) I don't know if I would call it forum shopping. TRM asked me (as closer) for clarification, and then asked me presumably as one of many admins to look over the behaviour. I gave my opinion, but also suggested he was welcome to ask another admin. And he brought his concerns to the administrators' noticeboard, which is, in my estimation, probably the best venue for such a request for review.

As I noted on his talk page, from my perspective (and also because I was considering the time frames involved as well), I was willing to let Medeis's comments concerning TRM above "slide" for now as they were mostly a request to review the close. But TRM is right I think that even this page should not be used as a way to violate the interaction ban with each other. But it's possibly the only venue that a request concerning another's behaviour may be made, I suppose, if kept as neutral as possible, and keeping WP:BOOMERANG in mind of course. This sounds perfectly in line with WP:BANEX. That said, I obviously welcome others' thoughts on this. - jc37 14:44, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

At this point, I suggest Jc37 "unclose" the sanction discussion, as it might be considered wheel-warring for any other admin to simply undertake a review sua sponte of the close. The "extra" edit by TRM on your UT page was and was not the one you appear to refer to -- it is the latter at 8:31 17 Jan which is "forumshopping" as it occurred well after discussion here and appears on its face to be a request for you to sanction an editor. Again -- please unclose the sanction result so that a fully uninvolved admin may weight consensus. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:53, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I welcome your evidence diffs that I am WP:INVOLVED in any way with the discussion I closed.

That the close may not have been clear as it should have been, I won't argue. But I think you'll have a rather difficult time proving I was "involved" in this in any way.

Beyond that, it is closed and clarified. And further, if the community feels that one or more of the editors should no longer be page banned, it is simple enough to immediately appeal the page ban. But I leave that to others' discretion. - jc37 15:09, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Whoa! I did not call you WP:INVOLVED with regard to anyone at all, nor do I think any fair reading of my post should arouse such umbrage. I did suggest that you might now be an eensy weensy bit defensive about what appears to just about everyone else here to have been a "blown call." Where only a minority of the !votes were favouring "option 2" it is difficult to assert that it had "consensus" alas. And I was only suggesting that you consider unclosing the case in order to prevent what might end up as a long discussion about what a "consensus" is and what a "supervote" is. Cheers. So here it is:

Proposed

That an independent administrator re-examine the finding at that "option 2" has a clear consensus for adoption in the TRM/BB/M AN/I discussion.

• Support Collect (talk) 16:26, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:21, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support NE Ent 23:15, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 04:12, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Somehow, I don't think a community consensus will be overturned by a local consensus of 4 editors voting, including at least 2 of whom participated in the discussion in question, and you, Collect, who, after I started this thread to review the block and close, decided to request that I start such a thread (here).

That aside, the editor was unblocked, and following discussion here and at User talk:Nyttend, I even apologised for the block (here). So I'm not certain what "unbrage" is supposed to have been "aroused".

You keep using phrasing like "totally uninvolved" and "independant", which suggests to me that you consider me WP:INVOLVED (or at least are trying to indicate that by inference), when in my estimation it merely sounds to me like you just want a close you don't like to be overturned.

Honestly, I think this is all moot anyway. As I mentioned above, at this point, any of the three editors are welcome to appeal to the community to remove the page ban if they wish, at their discretion, and if the community feels that one or more of the editors should no longer be page banned, it is simple enough to find out through such an appeal. - jc37 21:04, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

First of all -- I suspect that others will "sign on" to the proposal. Second, you are actually beginning to sound like "IDONTWANTTOHEARTHAT" in your tone here. I stated above that I never said you were WP:INVOLVED which you seem to wave as an accusation in every post you can at this point. Look at what the other admins stated above and tell me how many said in their posts that your "clear consensus" was either "clear" or a "consensus" <g>. And yes -- this is a reasonable noticeboard for this purpose. Your adamantine posts do not impress me at this point, just as your hair-trigger block which no one supported did not impress me. I admit I am hard to impress -- I have been online for over thirty years now, most of it as a contract holder for an ISP with responsibility for several hundred sysops. And I would note that, aside from you, no one here seems to oppose having a fair independent review of the close. Cheers -- have a cup of tea and simmer down, please. Collect (talk) 22:13, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Big balls, forum shopping, tea for three, time machines, when will it stop Collect? There's a sore point and a complex here, and this isn't the forum for it. You asked for your re-run, live and deal with the disinterest. Continually insinuating that jc37 is somehow "involved" is beyond the pale. Go harvest some opinion elsewhere lest this become a terrible embarrassment for you. Oh, and should I be allowed the honour of !voting in your latest game, I'd go for "oppose", I'm happy to be banned from interaction and the reference desks. I think it's all fully justified. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:48, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

HooHaa -- your impressive wit is boggling. I posted to Jc37 before I went back to look at WP:AN if you care to look at the chronology -- so much of your repartee here is not worth tuppence. This is the proper forum -- so your stuff about "forum shopping" is inane at best. And again I NEVER SAID JC37 WAS WP:INVOLVED so the big lie form of discussion is not worth iteration by you. In fact, it makes me thing that your "topic ban" might be insufficient. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:54, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Listen, getting all angry and bold about it won't help you know. And all your "in fact"s are fascinating, but considering your track record, you're hardly the "go-to guy" for good behaviour, eh?! Calm down, take a couple of gallons of tea, remove the tachyons from your mind, chill out and start acting rationally. Cheers! (and judging by all your previous edits here, you'll need the last word, so please, after you....) The Rambling Man (talk) 22:56, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Gosh -- what erudition! BTW, you are officially banned now from my user talk page. With warmest regards - Collect (talk) 23:03, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Genuinely, my heart breaks. I was never there. Get over yourself. Last word? The Rambling Man (talk) 23:05, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

With all due respect, Jc37, you started this thread yourself as a request for 3PO on your closure (and a block which was reversed). In response there seem to be unanimous agreement that there was no consensus in favor of sanction two. At least no one here has supported that exists what you are now calling a "community" consensus for that finding. Now you say I can file an appeal if I want. But I already have filed an appeal immediately above at 19:34, 16 January 2014 (UTC). User:Collect kindly put this in a formal structure, and once again formal consensus seems to be that part two of the finding needs revisiting. Please let that process play out. μηδείς (talk) 21:53, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi. What collect proposed is not an appeal of the existing page ban. But that aside, I would suggest that if you would like to post an appeal, you may want to start a separate thread for clarity. If you would like help with the formatting, please feel free to let me know. - jc37 04:40, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Jc37, please could you point out where TRM (or others) used the mis-spelling "independant"? I've not see this. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:47, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Me too. I hate to make such errors. User:Demiurge1000, please could you point out where User:jc37 has suggested that I (TRM) used this spelling? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:51, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

--Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:24, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh thank God and all his tachyons, I never made such an error. A gallon of tea for you and a teensy weensy cake to suit. (and the insinuation that jc37 is not "independent" is unacceptable without proof from the esteemed "Collect"). The Rambling Man (talk) 23:27, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

(To Demiurge1000) - In the diff you linked to I did indeed misspell independent, my apologies for that oversight (I'll leave the misspelling for clarity, now that it's been commented on.)

But the "you" in the comments was clearly referring to User:Collect, who in the above discussion did use the words "totally uninvolved" and "independent", with the implied assertion that the current closer (me) was neither, and said various other things above to try to continue to assert (insinuate?) that. (Age-old tactic - don't let lack of evidence stop you from making unfounded assertions. See also Three men make a tiger, among other things.)

And I merely was and am pointing them out. I honestly am unconcerned about Collect's implied assertions save that I think it's a bit disingenuous to assert such things then claim "I never said that". But shrugs, to each their own.

But regardless, my apologies to you Demiurge1000 if is was in any way unclear that my stating "...you, Collect..." implied someone else. - jc37 04:24, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

jc37 previously commented previously that " If some truly uninvolved editor feels that they now wish to close the discussion, please feel free. You (completely uninvolved editor) are welcome to revert the close partially, fully, ..." (As such a close may require imposing bans, the editor would have to be an admin). Has your (jc37) position changed since that statement? What has been proposed is not a reversal of the page ban but a request for a second opinion from an admin not previously a participant in the discussion. NE Ent 11:58, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

IOW -- you note that I not only did not raise the "uninvolved" bit, it was raised ab initio by ... Jc37 himself. All the snideness about me asserting he was "involved" because of my use of his own word is simply a sideshow unworthy of this noticeboard. I honestly thought he would welcome having others support what he himself suggested earlier. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Hogwash. Your intent to trip up jc37 is seen on the various pages that you were so quick to comment on. Your immediate announcement after the closure/block on the Ref Desk talk page, here, gives the appearance of nothing less than an uncalled for attack on the judgement of a fellow editor. 54.196.70.85 (talk) 15:12, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Note: The above troll was fed by TRM by his reinsertion of the post with the snarky edit summary: the point is well made and since it directly comments on your behaviour, you'd better leave it to someone... "uninvolved"). Cheers. I suggest that WP:Deny recognition constitutes sound advice here. And that no one here seems to have felt that the "instant block" in the case presented was wise. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:50, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Note, the above editor's behaviour was discussed by the so-called troll, including a diff. I'm sure there's an SPI somewhere covering all these IPs, or maybe they're just concerned editors who call a spade a spade. No tachyons required. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:54, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Not in other words. I pick my words very carefully. Our wiki interaction is limited to words, and the problem with words is they are always context dependent. "Involved" is a particularly sticky wiki word, as it can mean both WP:INVOLVED -- editor abusing sysop privilege in content dispute -- and real life wikt:involved (prior association with a dispute); jc37 is clearly not the former and definitely the latter. Additionally it's not a binary thing, as jc37's use of the phrase "truly uninvolved" implies. It was for that specific reason I used the more grammatically awkward phrase previously a participant instead of the simple English involved (not WP:INVOLVED) that I was actually thinking.

What should be important at this point is not who said what to whom when why, but that there are concerns that good faith closure of a community discussion did not reflect a reasonable interpretation of the discussion; a unbiased read of the entire thread will show there are more than four of us who feel another look is appropriate. NE Ent 18:47, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

And an unbiased read of the initial RFC will show that many editors raised concerns over behviour at the RD. While they may not have had a numerical advantage, their arguments were genuine and saddening and needed resolution. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

However, this discussion is not about the original discussion per se, but about how that discussion was closed. And in this discussion, we've had comments about the close of option #2 such as:

• Bishonen: "call of 'consensus' ... not self-evidently clear"
• Floquenbeam: "I have a very hard time seeing a consensus"
• The Devil's Advocate: " decent quorum to justify any finding of consensus"
• Lankiveil: "saying there was a consensus for option #2 was what Sir Humphrey might have described as a "courageous" decision"
• Collect: "there was no actual "clear consensus" there" and supports proposal that the closing of #2 be re-examined to determine if there was a clear consensus
• Demeiurge1000: supports proposal that the closing of #2 be re-examined to determine if there was a clear consensus
• NE Ent: supports proposal that the closing of #2 be re-examined to determine if there was a clear consensus
• Beyond My Ken: supports proposal that the closing of #2 be re-examined to determine if there was a clear consensus

So it's not just 4 editors questioning the close, and it's not about any one editor, we've got 8 editors in this discussion questioning whether the close for Option #2 accurately categorized the result of the debate, including a couple of admins and an Arb. Surely that should be enough for some other admin who has yet to comment here or in the original discussion to evaluate the close? BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 23:08, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

If we're going to go argumentum ab auctoritate the better Floquenbeam /Arb quote is: "I do not think there was a consensus for Option 2" NE Ent 23:16, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I stand corrected. BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 03:54, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps someone could engage those editors who stated their support for proposal 2 to contribute to this discussion, as it appears that none of them have been given an opportunity (or notification that this discussion even exists) to discuss this. Or perhaps it's too late, a done deal, that an admin had the guts to actually read opinion rather than simply count votes. As it stands, the enforcement of option 1 will mean those editors who have been ostracised, chased out and forced to leave the Ref Desks have no voice. Unless one of the above is prepared to initiate an RFC on the Ref Desk situation, of course, but it seems unlikely as many are actively chummy with one or more of those noted. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:43, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

So, you're suggesting that someone notify only one part of a topic ban discussion, the people that !voted for Option #2? As an admin, you certainly must be aware that such an action would be in direct contravention of WP:CANVASS. All the participants can be notified, but notifying one side only is verboten. BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 21:52, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Great point. Thanks for your contributions. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:11, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I believe I have commented a whole three times here, politely requesting an independent admin to address Jc37's own request for a third opinion. BMK and NE Ent have summarized the situation very well. I think any admin who's looked at the situation can and should act based on the clear facts. μηδείς (talk) 00:37, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

54 trolling

Amazon-based trolling / harassment-only accounts (DC and state of Washington, primarily):

54.242.221.254 (talk · contribs) Dec 17, 2013

54.224.35.46 (talk · contribs) Dec 28-29, 2013

54.224.206.154 (talk · contribs) Dec 31, 2013

54.224.53.210 (talk · contribs) Jan 4, 2014

54.204.117.139 (talk · contribs) Jan 6, 2014

54.196.70.85 (talk · contribs) Jan 19, 2014

If I've overlooked any, feel free to add to the list. :) ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:46, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

• Note: I've commented on Bugs' page, not realizing that his IP list was here as well. It would be useful if somebody good at the subtleties of rangeblocks could complement my analysis, because in that regard I'm kind of flying by the seat of my pants. I do agree with Bugs that there's some trolling and harassment in there. Bishonen | talk 07:27, 20 January 2014 (UTC).

Conflated problems, parallel discussions, and a proposed next step

After going back through the ANI in question -- as I'm sure several others have done now -- it's becoming clear the procedural problem rests with the conflation of two insufficiently related issues via three-part, three-party proposal followed by parallel arguments and a closure that sought to address them both (much to the confusion of those engaged in one argument or the other).

On one hand, there's the disruption and incivility via interactions between Baseball Bugs, Medeis, and The Rambling Man across many pages including the reference desk. This is the obvious impetus for #1 in the initial proposal, clearly, and its severity was made clear in the overwhelming support for #1. The confusion begins when people look to their interactions for evidence to support #2 (or #3), but don't see it. Obviously that three users can't get along doesn't mean they should be topic banned, right?

On the other hand, there's the issue that The Rambling Man was only involved in as one of many critics: the pattern of problematic contributions at the refdesk by Medeis and Baseball Bugs. Many of those participating in the discussion appear to be refdesk regulars (or former regulars) frustrated by this chronic issue and lack of admin intervention. For those people this was the ideal opportunity to seek the topic ban desired long before the recent flare up with The Rambling Man -- and which is only merited with consideration of broader, longer-term editing histories. While those looking to interactions between the three might be confused as to why #2 would even be proposed, to others it was the most important part of the proposal.

In other words, while I suspect the two editors who opened and closed the thread had similar motivations, I think it wasn't entirely clear to everyone involved just what was happening in terms of matching indiscretions with responses. It would've been clearer if these proposals were separated, rather than jointly proposed and thereby blurred: (A) "interaction ban for Baseball Bugs, Medeis, and The Rambling Man based on interactions between the three?" (B) "topic ban for Medeis and Baseball Bugs based on long-term editing record?" That The Rambling Man zealously sought to point out B doesn't mean A and B should be the subject of a single proposal/discussion.

Since it seems overwhelmingly clear there's consensus for (A), I think this discussion should be closed with that resolution, but that an RfC immediately be opened to address (B). (I say this as someone who was in favor of the ban in the original discussion, but at this point I think the closing resolution to enact the ban is not only evidently controversial -- which of course is not reason enough in itself, necessarily -- but also based on a confused discussion and confusing proposal. I'm confident a separate RfC will result in the same outcome, but going through the process seems worthwhile). --— Rhododendrites |  20:23, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

(presumably for "Running Man" you mean "Rambling Man"?! And yes, thank you for your suggestion, the ability to launch an RFC on the behaviour of editors at RD was paramount in my thinking, as I have stated variously. Of course, being IBAN'ed, I can no longer perform that task, so I appreciate the suggestion that this should be conducted post-haste.) The Rambling Man (talk) 20:31, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

• So, your suggestion is that the topic ban on the three of us be removed, not because it was never supported by any consensus in the first place, but because it was misdirected, and should only have applied to Bugs and myself? TRM's behavior is not to be examined? The topic ban should simply be removed as unsupported. This requires no relitigation. The explicit result of the ANI was 17 argued votes against sanction 2, and 7/8 in favor of it. That's a failed consensus. μηδείς (talk) 22:07, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
  • What I mean is that because the original discussion was confused from the start, the only thing we can take away from it is that there was consensus for #1 (the interaction ban). Even if the vote tally leaned harder in either direction, #2 and #3 should be closed as no consensus. But, because the only reason there was anything resembling consensus for #2 is due to longer-term issues for which TRM is not a central figure, an RfC should be opened, immediately following the "no consensus" close, concerning you (Medeis) and Baseball Bugs. In the interim, there would be no topic ban, and a new evaluation of the arguments would be necessary by the next closing admin--but this thread would be closed. In practical terms, I'm on your side here (in the short term anyway). I think the determination that #2 had consensus should be overturned, but that it shouldn't prevent (and indeed should be predicated upon) an RfC. If that results in a topic ban or not, the process will at least have integrity (which it's lacking somewhat now). --— Rhododendrites |  22:49, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, I agree with you that the only thing that can be taken away from the ANI is that point #1 is overwhelmingly supported. Recognizing that stands on its own, however. That there be an RfC on point #2 is not a proper condition of recognizing that fact. μηδείς (talk) 23:05, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Here's how things should happen: (1) Option 2 had no consensus, and should immediately be nullified; (2) If someone wants to file an RFC against either of us, they are free to do so; (3) If so, there should be two different RFC's, i.e. one for me and one for Medeis. The notion that we are somehow a "team" is a false characterization. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:18, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

It's true there's not really a precedent for a close made conditional on an RfC being opened, so how about this: an assurance to those parties who would continue to argue that #2 had consensus to enact that there will be an RfC on the issue. - I think that's fair to not want to be joined together as a "team" as has been the case. Two RfCs would probably be cumbersome, though, since the issue at hand is generally the same: unhelpful and/or offensive and/or counterproductive contributions at the refdesk. I think a single RfC could be properly framed to ensure separate consideration, though. But that's for a later step. Hoping jc37 weighs in about to legitimate moving away from this metadiscussion and to the separate discussion of #2 that would have ideally been separate from the start. --— Rhododendrites |  23:45, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Several problems: The RfC rules appear to preclude yoking together editors. Second, RfCs specifically can not produce sanctions on their own. The proper solution is to vacate the close with regard to proposal 2, as no one at this point is suggesting that a "consensus" existed to topic ban the editors. Then after things cool down - say in one month, allow a new community sanctions thread at AN/I which will hopefully not have a multitude of "sections". At this point in time, I suggest that this is the only procedurally correct course under Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. Collect (talk) 23:55, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Specifically which policies and guidelines say to allow a new ANI "after things cool down" such that it's the "only procedurally correct course under Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines?" You do raise the good point that an RfC cannot result in sanctions, which I was unclear on (although I'm not seeing anything about not being able to discuss two users in the same RfC). So I suppose a separate AN(/I) is the best course, but an arbitrary waiting period defeats the point.

The point is there are two issues that need to be discussed, and since at least one of them was ill-framed in the previous ANI, the discussion couldn't come to an adequate consensus. As this is not because of the issue itself, it doesn't make sense to just now push it aside. It should be adequately discussed in its own separate thread, apart from the interaction ban matters. --— Rhododendrites |  01:01, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

What Collect has suggested, in general follows what I was thinking. There is no consensus for a permanent ban from the ref desk. However, there have been some good-faith issues raised. So, what Collect calls a cooling-off period, I would call a probationary period, of whatever length can be agreed upon - I was thinking a month, but it could be anything - to demonstrate a willingness to stick to the straight and narrow on the ref desks, and thus obviate any reason or necessity to re-impose a topic ban. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:15, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify something: Bans, like blocks, are to be preventative. In this case to prevent disruption. Afaik, if anyone were to propose a "cool down" period, I would expect opposition to that idea, as it is contrary to how things are to be implemented, per long standing practice. (As an aside, one of the fastest ways to upend an WP:RFA is to suggest imposing a "cool down block" in response to a hypothetical.)- jc37 07:11, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

If an admin finds that there was not consensus for a community sanction, the procedure is not to immediately propose a community sanction again -- the noticeboard is not the place to argue instantly for something which has already failed to gain consensus. That is the idea behind waiting a month -- that you are now so invested in the decision is unfortunate but irrelevant. "I would expect opposition to that idea, as it is contrary to how things are to be implemented, per long standing practice" is wrong and inapt. We do not keep after anyone with immediate proposals for sanctions after one proposal fails. And, at this point, there is now no doubt in my mind that proposal two failed. If we allow instant reruns of every call for sanctions, the editos in question would be quite effectively forced off of Misplaced Pages without anything remotely approaching an orderly process. Decisions once settled are not then "rerun ad nauseam" until the "right result" occurs. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

@Collect: - You missed the point. Procedure was flawed. A viable outcome could not be determined because the discussion was confused. That doesn't mean there was an on-topic discussion where everybody was arguing about the same thing and the result should be "no consensus" (or, obviously, that there was a consensus one way or the other). The discussion that should've taken place didn't, leading to a mistrial, so to speak. A mistrial that, in order to determine consensus, needs to be retried (again, so to speak). So your suggestion that this amounts to "keeping after" someone with sanction proposals is not applicable (nor the latest in a line of shots at jc37). It's a regrettable situation, but now in the way you describe. --— Rhododendrites |  14:40, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• I believe Rhododendrites has made a perfectly reasonable suggestion (and backed it with strong logic). I would suggest that unless jc37 explicitly objects that Rhododendrites goes ahead and does as suggested - "overturn" the close to be option A only and initiate a fresh discussion (at RfC or ANI depending on the goal of the discussion) on option B. I agree that the two issues (fighting between the 3 and Ref Desk disruption) are partially independent and the previous discussion improperly conflated the two. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:40, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

A general RFC (in WP:RFC-style), as noted probably wouldn't be helpful, for several reasons, including a few of Collect's comments. If we were to implement as User:Rhododendrites suggests, it would probably need to be another WP:AN/I discussion. (essentially a redo on technical grounds - both as User:Rhododendrites notes and as User:Nyttend and I discussed (wording: topic ban / page ban).)

The other way to do this is as is already an option, any of the three can appeal the page ban, which in that case would also be an AN or AN/I discussion.

So anyway, since you asked (smile) - regardless of format, I in no way oppose starting a community discussion at WP:AN/I concerning whether one or more of the three editors should be page banned from the Reference Desk (including all its talk pages, subpages, and any other directly related pages). This can be an appeal, or due to perceived confusion of the previous nomination, or even because WP:CCC. A notice of the discussion should be placed at the reference desk so that those who may be affected by this may be aware of the discussion. If someone would like to notify everyone who participated in the previous discussion, that probably wouldn't be a bad idea either.

But in the meantime, considering the many concerns of our fellow Wikipedians, I would suggest all 3 editors stay away from the Ref Desk et al until this is resolved.

Incidentally, I'd like to commend User:Rhododendrites for some very well-reasoned, insightful comments. - jc37 06:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Rhododendrondronites is "not an admin" -- but any admin can read the tea leaves -- with such a strong discussion, no one can claim "wheel war" at this point. The idea that editors can appeal a wrongful claim of consensus is not something which is practical as an admin might require a 3/4 "consensus" to overturn the "bold close" in the first place, while the best procedure is to do what Jc37 initially asked for -- that is for an admin to take him up on his invitation to review the close. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:35, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

@Jc37: - Thanks. But if it's framed as an appeal, the discussion will inevitably become dominated by the present one -- about the enactment of the ban to begin with and the content of previous threads -- thus precluding discussion of the actual problem and inevitably leading to another unhappy outcome. I think the same would be true if the ANI were posed as a community discussion while the current ban stands, which has the additional problem of lacking urgency and would appear to be an appeal even if not framed that way. As much as I, too, in your position, would hate to feel as though I was validating the various accusations and rhetorical black-and-white imperatives here, to me, it's the best of the possible directions as I can see them: (a) you unclose #2 and an ANI is opened seeking action -- hopefully as though the previous ANI didn't even take place; (b) you let the close stand, it is contested and subsequently overturned such that the result is closer to an AfD "no consensus"; (c) you let the close stand, it runs its course or is contested and upheld; (d) you let the close stand, the parties appeal the ban, ensuing discussion hinges on procedurality, and again either the ban stands or it doesn't but we still haven't had a real discussion of the substance of #2. --— Rhododendrites |  14:41, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Blinks <re-reads my comments> Ok, so after re-reading, I still think that they say what I thought they did, that I don't oppose your proposal for a "re-do" on a discussion. I merely suggested that it be an AN/I discussion for various reasons, including some Collect noted.

And frame the "why" of the discussion as you like. Call it an appeal, or a re-do on technical grounds, or even suggesting that consensus has changed. Regardless of the why of the discussion, it would be a request to the community to consider the question: Should one or more of the three editors in question be page banned from the Reference Desk (including all its talk pages, subpages, and any other directly related pages). I welcome this specific question being put before the community to discuss.

I've bolded this because I feel like I've repeatedly said this and it's not being heard.

Our goal presumably should be to try to respect the community's wishes, and to try to prevent disruption (particularly as noted by other members of the community). - jc37 15:17, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I would note that your close specifically bars any appeals for six months. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Have you not read anything I've actually been saying above? Anyway, here's a diff from 5 days ago, which I believe is reflected in my above comments. Happy reading. - jc37 16:42, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

@Jc37: - Aha! Got it now. Indeed I did see that you were saying discussion can go ahead but I didn't read in the corresponding "and the current ban will be lifted." Well ok then. So what you're saying is that you're banning everyone and deleting the refdesk, right? Because you hate freedom? :) I'll open the ANI if nobody else does, but as I am a relative newbie to the refdesk I think there are others better equipped to do so. I'll post to the refdesk talk page and go from there. --— Rhododendrites |  16:31, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Not sure how "one or more of the three editors" equals "everyone" lol, but enjoy your wiki-break/vacation if you so choose : )

And sure, if you would like any help with formatting, as I offered User:Medeis above, I would be happy to help. - jc37 16:42, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Probably doesn't need clarification (indicated by your reciprocal smiley), but I was kidding re: people repeatedly misunderstanding you. I'm not concerned about formatting the ANI or taking a wikibreak (as if I have the willpower); the reason I say I'm not best equipped is mainly because having not been lurking around the refdesk as long or as actively as others I don't have as many examples/diffs ready-to-hand, is all. Regardless, I'm moving my part of this thread over to the refdesk now. --— Rhododendrites |  18:13, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

If your statement about "cooling off blocks" were true in practice, then every block would be indefinite. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 08:12, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

So, Collect, you've made lots of dramatic and bold and italicised comments, but it's been substantially more heat than light, which is quite depressing, but not surprising. In other news, I agree that all three of us should be banned from the RDs for the six months proposed. In fact, it appears that other RD regulars breathed a sigh of relief when the initial close was made. One comment in particular seems pertinent to this "discussion". I could add other diffs discussing the behaviour of the other editors but I think I'm prohibited from doing so per the interaction ban. If the current sanction is overturned, it would be great (and entirely appropriate) for another editor to immediately launch an RFC about the behaviour all concerned editors at the Ref Desks. There should be nothing preventing an RFC being lodged, and it looks like we have plenty of volunteers, including many former RD regulars who no longer contribute there. While I'm prohibited from commenting on other editors' behaviour, I hope I'm allowed to be polite and note it's been gratifying to see at least one of them getting stuck into mainspace edits, along with a promise to rein in the chuckles at RD. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:41, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Um -- ad hom rants do not actually belong here. I did bold comments when people accused me of writing what I did not write, of doing things I did not do, and I admit to thinking that making ad hom charges here indicates a problem on your part. Further you should note that I had zero interaction with you prior to this discussion, making your vehemence against me a puzzlement at best. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:19, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure you have just plenty more drama to add, and that seems evident from your track record. If you have something to actually action, do it. Otherwise, remember what you've been told, Arbcom etc.... Your perplexing ban on me from your talk page is puzzling. I've never posted there, unless, of course, you consider these pages as your talk pages? That'd be appropriate given your contributions. Your "reputation" precedes you.... Let's get this RFC started! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I looked at that thread when it was going on, and was considering posting something to oppose sanction 2, but decided that what was already posted was SNOW-y enough against the sanction that I didn't bother posting. I've never had problems with the wascally wabbit at any of the wefdesks. I'm shocked to hear that the sanction "passed", and it does sound like a bad closure. 50.0.121.102 (talk) 08:10, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Starting yet another ANI discussion about the closure is not called for. This is that discussion already. Jc37 started this discussion, explicitly asking for a review of his closure. We've got exactly that in these threads. Excluding the parties of the ANI there is not a single user among some ten who have commented who says there was consensus for sanction 2. (This is greater than the 7 or 8 users in the original ANI who supported sanction 2 in the first place.)

On this basis the finding should be reversed now.

We don't need another ANI to discuss the meaning of this AN in discussing the closure of the prior ANI. We simply need one uninvolved admin to say officially there was no consensus, or there actually was. Where does one recruit such an admin? Is there a tag or template? Someone should be invited t act on this review of the closure, not another review. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 18:58, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• It's clear that the Option 2 decision should be tossed out. And it occurs to me that, for the sake of fairness, if there is to be an RFC following up on Option 2, it would necessarily have to review all the parties to that option. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:19, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• I'm very content to be banned from the Ref Desks indefinitely, assuming that applies to all other appellants. As noted above, there's been a certain "sigh of relief" from the existing RD regulars since this option has been exercised. Should the discussion need to be held again, then an RFC is the only way forward, and I'll gladly and immediately volunteer to be banned from Ref Desks under the current sanctions. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Has Option 1 been nullified? I don't recall seeing any announcement about it. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:50, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

@Baseball Bugs: @Medeis: - Clarifying: The new ANI is not connected to this one or the previous. Unless I misunderstand jc37's intentions, the IBAN stands as the only result from the previous ANI. The topic ban is to be lifted irrespective of consensus one way or the other because the procedure/proposal which conflated the interaction ban issue with the topic ban issue was flawed from the start. In other words, they should've been discussed separately; now they will be (and not in connection to past ANIs). --— Rhododendrites |  22:32, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Looking for unsuitable usernames

• User:DeltaQuadBot used to look for unsuitable usernames, and put its findings in Misplaced Pages:Usernames for administrator attention/Bot, but (see https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/DeltaQuadBot ) it has not done this since 01:13, 14 December 2013. What has happened to it? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:17, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I've left a message for the bot op here notifying him. Organics 14:15, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I remember this was discussed either at AN or ANI a few weeks ago also, did nothing come out of it? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:14, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Discussed here, here and here. So, no, nothing ever seems to come of it, to say the least. Rgrds. --64.85.215.175 (talk) 16:04, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Help deleting an image

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

For some reason I'm unable to delete this copyvio; the error message I receive is "Error deleting file: Could not create directory "mwstore://local-multiwrite/local-deleted/o/4/j". Can someone else take a shot at it? Thanks, --Jezebel'sPonyo 17:22, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually it appears I can no longer delete any images (I was working through the laundry list of copyvios here).--Jezebel'sPonyo 17:26, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

You are not the only person having trouble deleting images, . Is this an overall technical issue? VQuakr (talk) 17:51, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Ymblanter just did it; I've no idea what the issue was. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:55, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

(ec) I just have deleted the file, no problem. No idea about the technical stuff.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:55, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks; the issue now appears to have sorted itself. Back to work everyone!--Jezebel'sPonyo 18:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

• Just a note that the Tampa server is down, so there may be disturbances. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 18:40, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Autoblock finder?

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

User:Jaqeli's seven-day block has expired, but he is now under an autoblock. To clear the autoblock, you need the number. Does anyone know of a working autoblock finder? The old finders seem to get the 'account expired' message when you try to use them, and I don't see any new ones at WP:LABS. EdJohnston (talk) 18:49, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Here you go! --Jezebel'sPonyo 19:08, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Would it be a good idea to better regulate or otherwise place sanctions on cryptocurrency-related articles?

There are dozens of electronic currencies in use these days, and many of them have communities that engage in coordinated efforts to promote their coin on Misplaced Pages and elsewhere in order to pump up the value of their investment. This is a topic that has generated many AfDs, as well: looking through the redlinks on the pre-deletion "List of cryptocurrencies" article, you'll see that many of them point to deleted articles. It's very common to see, in place of independent secondary sources, a reliance on less-reliable sources such as links to the bitcointalk forum, promotional websites and press releases, or raw-data utilities like "coinmarketcap," blockchain explorers, coin exchange websites used to back up WP:OR. I have often come across material that reads like an advertisement, and I've also seen a few instances of users making edits solely to plug their favorite coin, and/or to remove references to competing ones.

My point is that articles pertaining to cryptocurrency seem to invite problematic Wiki behavior. I'm not that familiar with Misplaced Pages policy or very well-versed in how these noticeboards work, but I feel like articles on cryptocurrencies, in general, could use some more well-defined notability guidelines to prevent protracted AfD battles, and it might help if measures were taken to help keep these articles neutral and to mitigate the amount of promotional activity and meatpuppetry that seems to take place within articles relating to this topic. It is not my intention to call for action on any of the examples I gave above, to single out any users in particular, or to take a particular stance for or against cryptocoins, I mostly just want to start a discussion about what can, or should be done to improve these types of articles.

Thanks for your time, I look forward to reading your comments. Breadblade (talk) 20:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the combination of internet-based commercial interests and strong ideological leanings associated with cryptocurrency means that this is a classic case of a problematic area for Misplaced Pages. However, we generally don't implement general restrictions until its clear that the standard admin responses aren't working or are being over-whelmed by problematic behaviour. To help this discussion, can you point to examples of unsuccessful admin responses, RfCs, unstoppable edit wars or sock puppetry, etc, concerning these articles which illustrate that broad problems aren't being properly addressed? Nick-D (talk) 23:24, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

The simple solution is to require solid independent sources: sources of the sort that a professional encyclopedia would use. Sources that are independent of their subjects chronologically as well as organically: discounting news sources that treat the cryptocurrency itself as a subject of news. No complaint about sources that publish news about the cryptocurrency (e.g. "The tripling elephant population prompted growth in the value of the cryptocurrency _____ today"), but when the cryptocurrency is itself the news, the source isn't independent. This will ensure that we're only covering cryptocurrencies that are established and capable of being documented beyond press releases and SEO techniques. It will ensure that we can write an encyclopedia article, rather than simply summarising what's been in the newspaper lately. Nyttend (talk) 23:38, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I haven't been following the topic closely and for long enough to find many big examples, but I do remember that the dogecoin AfD came pretty close to getting overwhelmed by meatpuppets, and that the highest valued currency unit page turned into some pro-/anti- bitcoin battleground at some point. Do the admin noticeboards have a searchable database? I could do some digging, if so. I think the biggest issues with this topic are more subtle: many of these articles have trouble with NPOV, sourcing is generally poor on average, and it's hard to determine notability of cryptocurrency articles based on the way many of these coins are covered in the media. Maybe this topic needs its own WikiProject to maintain some consistent standard of quality? That's just one possible suggestion, maybe someone more familiar with wikipedia policy or these articles might have a better idea. Breadblade (talk) 00:20, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• I created Dogecoin when it was limited to the community of 4chan. It obviously had the resources to back it up being warranted as an article when it was nominated for deletion, but I never expected to see fallout upon the lines of DOXING (leaking personal info for anybody not familiar) nominators solely because they nominated an article for deletion and having people CALL the nominator via phone. I felt very bad and almost wanted the article deleted just so they would leave the nominator alone, but then when real legitimate opinions based on policy started to pour in, I felt assured they would leave him alone. Atomicthumbs never made another edit until January 9, 2014, which I'm assuming is because of that alone. Cryptocurrency certainly is a controversial subject, and that extremism is currently evident. I feel something needs to be done, but I honestly don't know how to proceed. Citation Needed | Talk 00:24, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• I would be greatly in favor of a sanction that all articles about cryptocurrencies be considered spam unless reliable secondary sources can be presented for them. We require secondary sources for notability, and all of the sources on the Dogecoin article — having been created chronologically in the vicinity of the cryptocurrency's creation — are primary sources. Established cryptocurrencies, such as Bitcoin, will obviously have secondary sources, so this won't affect them. We can't simply decree this and mandate the deletion of articles on grounds such as this, but such a sanction would be comparatively easy to enforce at AFD: instruct a closing admin to discount all "keep" votes that don't seek to demonstrate the existence of reliable secondary sources, i.e. sources chronologically independent of the subject as well as being independent in every other way. Nyttend (talk) 02:39, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I would not. Automatically treating articles as spam is exactly what doesn't need to go on in Misplaced Pages, nd to some degree what has already been going on in the subject area. To discard keep votes that don't bring a source to the table is unilaterally bad, and is overly bitey in an area that has received a lot of attention on Misplaced Pages from other websites than Misplaced Pages. Give the articles a fair chance. Dogecoin was a joke at first but then actually started to get legitimate uses as businesses accepted them. KonveyorBelt 20:43, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

• There's lots of agenda pushing from both directions, that has been going on long before the recent altcoin explosion. Bitcoin was a terrible article for a long time (not sure about now) because of it. Unfortunately List of cryptocurrencies was chopped and redirected at AfD, since its now-eliminated "big" list had seemed like a good place to mention currencies that met a basic standard of verifiability by independent sources, but didn't reach the higher standard of GNG required for a standalone article. So now we're in for more crap articles that we can't easily just redirect to list items. (I !voted keep at that afd and feel a bit regretful about not making this point more clearly, though it probably wouldn't have mattered).

  Anyway, this thread almost feels like canvassing for deletion supporters to find ways to game afd, which seems icky. We certainly shouldn't get to "instruct closing admins" to do anything different than follow normal afd practices (which include well-established ways of handling !votestacking situations). Ideally I'd want to retain some mention of coins that brought interesting innovations (ethereum was last week's hotness) while tossing the ones that were lookalike semi-scams, but there's not really any effective way do that, and I think our coverage of this topic is going to stay crap for a long time. I'm not that into this stuff myself but I have acquaintances who follow it closely, and they're always finding very interesting stuff in places that we can't really use (e.g. forum threads). 50.0.121.102 (talk) 10:02, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• Don't get me wrong, I don't think the problem is that not enough cryptocurrency related articles are getting deleted. There are plenty of articles in this topic which meet the criteria for inclusion, but still need to be improved. Maybe the List of Cryptocurrencies in its new form can be updated with a section detailing coins that aren't notable enough for their own article, but present some new or interesting technical innovation. As it stands currently, we're more likely to keep an article about a media darling that changes some numbers around in the Litecoin or Bitcoin source code (Dogecoin, Coinye) than a more obscure coin that brings something new to the table technically. I don't follow this topic closely enough any examples of the latter, but I can see how that can be a problem. Breadblade (talk) 11:01, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• Let's also make this clear. Some articles look like shit, and it usually is a good reason to warrant deletion (this is AFTER you go on Google and find out that only forums and blogs talk about it, or if you just have a instinct). Some articles, like BitPay (which I just discovered) are also written horribly, but the difference is when you pull up a search, the sources are there and the article doesn't have to look like shit. The ones I've been nominating, are the first seneario but with usually only one or two worthwhile sources. Dogecoin has the luxury of originally being a gimmick coin getting attention and then after finding legitimate usages, obtain even more legitimate attention (I'm seeing this coin being accepted in STORES alongside Bitcoin, although that doesn't pertain at all). Coinye is purely a joke coin directed at a hip-hop artist, but it's also opened a large debate in the legal field about trademark/copyright infringement and cryptocurrency, and thus has also gotten much attention. Those are exceptions to the general trend because most of these altcoins only bring something technologically new but unknown mainstream to the table, but because they don't have an IT factor (mainstream attraction), they're lucky to get passing mentions and one or two good sources. Of course, we have exceptions to this as well. Primecoin? That should've been deleted because other than an MIT source, there was nothing backing it up, and I'm sure it would be if somebody nominated it again. That means we're left with Namecoin and Peercoin, which somehow have the sources to back themselves up, so obviously they're notable. What we need to coordinate improvement of these articles that DO make it? We need a WikiProject, like the other soul that brought it up. If nobody want's to create it, I'll do it when I have the time. Citation Needed | Talk 13:28, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• I think I'm generally in agreement with this. I'd be happy to help out with a WikiProject if we could get some more interested editors together. Breadblade (talk) 19:41, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

In agreement as well. KonveyorBelt 20:43, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Nightscream closed

An arbitration case regarding Nightscream has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedy has been enacted:

For repeatedly violating the policy on administrator involvement, Nightscream's administrative privileges are revoked. Should he wish to regain administrator status in the future, he may file a new request for adminship.

For the Arbitration Committee, Rschen7754 01:26, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Discuss this

Closure review request

Would an uninvolved admin please review the non-admin closure of Talk:United States#Inequality, tax incidence, and AP survey? The non-admin who closed the discussion used very strong language disparaging the sincerity of those who have been discussing the topic. Worse, the non-admin closure did not properly weigh peer reviewed secondary sources opposed to astroturfed propaganda sources. It was opened December 1st, and while the arguments continue on other articles' talk pages, the RFC sections have not been touched for weeks other than for the non-admin closure. EllenCT (talk) 03:16, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• Concur with the closure. The fact that it was an WP:NAC is irrelevant; NAC's done by an uninvolved editor are just as valid as admin closes. And closure review is done by this board, not by an individual admin. As such, although I find myself in philosophical agreement with those advocating the inclusion of the graphs, the closure seems to only be deficient in terms of a lack of details. But the closure is, nevertheless, a valid summary of the discussion. There is no consensus to include the images, and the parenthetical is also in good faith: those advocating inclusion are fighting against the fairly clear consensus in regards to this matter. Continuing to fight this battle is disruptive, and Ellen would be well advised to drop the WP:stick and work on making productive contributions to the article. VanIsaac_{WS Vex} 07:21, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Did you consider the extent to which right-wing political think tanks' unreviewed sources, such as the income tax graph from the Peterson Foundation, are being used to counter the conclusions of the secondary peer-reviewed literature, e.g. on corporate tax incidence? I strongly object to the implication that upholding the standards of source reliability is beating a dead horse with a stick. EllenCT (talk) 22:22, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, you just changed the question. Did you want a closure review, or did you just want to re-argue the matter? A closure review asks whether the closure was an accurate and good-faith summary of the discussion. This one does not seem to have crossed any lines. A closure review does not include questions like "how would I have commented?", or even "how would I have closed the discussion myself?". You are asking me to lodge an opinion on the underlying matter, not of the closure itself, and that is something I have no interest in doing, considering that I did not comment on the matter the first time around, even though I was aware of the discussion. If you have concerns about the balance of ideological material in the article, the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard is thataway. VanIsaac_{WS Vex} 08:21, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

• As a non-admin who occasionally does close discussions like this, I'd say A) the closure was correct. There was no consensus for inclusion in those discussions. And B) I'd say the closure could have been better done with a bit more tact. But yeah, the results of the close were correct. Hobit (talk) 14:55, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Abusive terms in 'Edit summary'

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

The Misplaced Pages article Edu-Clubs was blanked on 3 Jan 2014 and was replaced by abusive terms; the derogatory comments was repeated in edit summary too. Same is the case with the Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Club Excel page. There too the edit summary includes the same comments Though the edit to the Edu-Clubs page was reverted immediately by some bot and the Misplaced Pages Club page by some users, the page history of both the pages displays the very same text in edit summary even now. It request the admins to hide the abusive edit summary in page history from both the pages. - Vaikunda Raja (talk) 12:09, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Lee arango me

There is some sort of situation with Lee arango me (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The user edits sporadically, making rambling blog-like edits in mainspace. Note also the responses on his (some edits are signed "Leonor") talkpage and in addition to the user page, this: User:Lee arango me/UserProfileIntro. I saw that he had not been welcomed, so left him a welcome template and a note, but he returned today with this edit. This edit on meta could be taken as a legal threat, but that is not how the person who responded took it. I am thinking there are competency issues, but language problems may be a factor; looking at global contributions, I do not see a wiki declared as the home wiki, and there are said to be edits on 4 but I can only see 3, so possibly all edits have been deleted on a native-language wiki? I'd appreciate assistance explaining things to this editor, perhaps in another language, because otherwise I think we may have to block him on competency grounds; the mainspace edits are disruptive.

In this edit the user claims to be " leonor arango disabled bipolar on chemo". The user is apparently female per (Redacted). Serious competence issues.--Auric talk 14:41, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I wish I hadn't clicked :-( I'd seen a few of those statements in checking the user's contributions, but hadn't wanted to invade her privacy (sorry, I had the sex of the name wrong). I think I'm still in the same place with regards to en.wikipedia though - can anyone help get through to her, or do we really have to block her, which makes me sad but I brought this here because it looks as if we do have to. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:58, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, I had a poke around and at a guess the editor is a native speaker of either portuguese or spanish. Are there any spanish/portuguese speaking admins around? Blackmane (talk) 19:39, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, our main concern ought to be with the project and I do not see how this user contributes anything. Drmies (talk) 05:05, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

That's all fine and dandy but if we just block them based on the usual alphabet soup without any sort of explanation, or at least an attempt at one, we might see a future disgruntled return and be fighting future fires that could otherwise have been dealt with by a softer touch. Blackmane (talk) 16:15, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Putting a comment here to forestall archiving. The editor edits only sporadically and so I do not really expect a response from her here, but I did word my notification as simply as possible in case she would want to comment. Someone else has also left a comment on her talk page now offering Misplaced Pages-related assistance should she want it. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:11, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

query only

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

Is an administrator supposed to block IPs for reverting edits made by that same admin even where it is not really obvious that "vandalism" is the reasoning for such edits, but "vandalism" is given as the reason for such a block? ? This is a hypothetical query only, but I seem to possibly have noticed its occurrence. Cheers to all. Collect (talk) 17:28, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Depends on the content of the edit and if the IP (and range) has been blocked/banned via SPI etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:32, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

For the hypothetical query only, has the "54" series IP range been caught in such a web? Would changing, say, "colour" to "color" count as vandalism? Or changing date formats be "vandalism"? Reverting an edit made by the same admin who blocks the person for vandalism and then protects the page as an admin? Would any of these ipso facto be "improper" as a hypothetical query? Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:49, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I can't see that changing "Colour" to "Color" could be vandalism but it certainly could be disruptive editing, i.e. if the article was in British English and the IP had been warned previously that this was so and they should not change it. Ditto the date formats. I think a bit more context is required. Black Kite (talk) 18:54, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Suppose for the sake of this hypothetical that an admin was an editor on an article, and reverted an entirely proper and accurate edit on (say) the number of goals scored by a football player with the edit summary "vandal" and then blocked the IP who had made an accurate edit for "vandalism" using his admin powers and then also protected the page with the inaccurate information which the admin had edited himself? What would your position be on such a hypothetical case? Collect (talk) 19:01, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Time for the fishing expedition to finish. Get on with something useful. Or be less pathetically hypothetical and get on with life. (Oh, and see the instructions at Template:Infobox football biography if you're actually attempting something constructive here). The Rambling Man (talk) 19:05, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

(ec)An interesting response to a hypothetical query. Suppose I changed "football" to "baseball" or "basketball" -- would that have posed less of a problem? I do wonder why you call me "pathetic" though. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:17, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure you contribute something positive here, not just drama, but I can't quite see it. Maybe someone else can fill me in. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:24, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

My position would be, tell us the article name so we can see for ourself, since it's fairly obvious this isn't hypothetical. Black Kite (talk) 19:15, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Bingo, and that is why this is pathetic. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:24, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

In my experience, I've found that sometimes people present a hypothetical in order to extract their preferred answer before the actual situation is revealed because they fear the revelation of the details will change the answer they receive. I am not accusing you of this, I'm presenting you a reason why editors might be reluctant to reply to your hypothetical scenario before learning the details. I suggest that the most efficient way to resolve whatever matter you have observed is for you to present the full details here. Thanks. Gamaliel (talk) 20:12, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the scenario I presented in the query is insufficient to give opinions on? What further hypothetical information might you require? I tried to be thorough to make the hypothetical pretty clear, but would be glad to append to it if it would help get further views and opinions, of course. I read the Nightscream ArbCom case and decision, and think it might be of interest in general for the case I present in this query. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:17, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Drama-mongery. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:18, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

• Taking the original question in good faith - I think it is perfectly acceptable for an admin to block any editor who is engaging in clear vandalism, even one who has reverted the same admin on that article. That admin would not be INVOLVED as they are simply doing what any other admin would have done. GiantSnowman 20:21, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

And in the more specific hypothetical which I was asked to give where the edit was clearly not vandalism? Thank you for your answer, of course. Collect (talk) 20:28, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Then the admin would be considered INVOLVED and should not act. GiantSnowman 20:37, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

There are a number of problematic and disruptive behaviors that might justify such a block beyond simple vandalism, and the block may be appropriate despite the admin's participation in the article. Perhaps the block is appropriate but the reason provided in the block log is not precisely correct. Without details, I can only speculate. Gamaliel (talk) 20:39, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Is there not an exception to the "involved admin" policy which says something to the effect that if the edit made by the supposedly involved admin was one that any reasonable admin would have made in any case, then the "involvement" ir irrelevant? BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 22:42, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, in third paragraph of WP:INVOLVED. Of course, as it involves judgement and evaluation of the specific context of the action, I don't see any value in discussing hypothetical what-ifs. If there's a concern about an admin action, the observing editor should discuss on the admin's talk page and then post here with diffs if the situation remains unresolved. NE Ent 22:56, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Help needed

Hello,

Can we please have some help at Template:DYK. It has a severe backlog and we need Prep Area 4 moved into a queue, as we appear getting close to a deadline and we need admin approval. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 21:30, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I've made the necessary updates. I'm not familiar with process however, so please double check my edits. -- John Reaves 21:51, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

@John Reaves: -- Good, but we need it in queue 2, since that's the next one to go onto the main page and it's empty, so just fix that and then it'll be set. Sportzilla | _ROARR!! 22:04, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I believe I've fixed it. -- John Reaves 22:10, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I need someone to fix the credits. Can another experienced admins check out the hooks for that? Sportzilla | _ROARR!! 22:34, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Nigger (song)

Good day. Why I can't create the article with such name? Can you please restore this one....I promise, it will have just a redirect to Clawfinger discography#Nigger. I'm not going to create the text.....so please, restore it just for redirect. Thanks --ВікіПЕДист (talk) 16:56, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

You may be better off using a sandbox to show your intended article to people before it goes live. Britmax (talk) 17:01, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

oppose? I cant imagine justifying such a controversial redirect title for such a non notable song (no charting, no reviews, no evidence of influence or impact, etc). A far more useful redirect target would be ] imo, but that is probably not necessary as the N word itself is already the title of that article. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:16, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

The song is not terribly notable, but it would be a plausible search term for the discography or the album. Being "controversial" should not really be an issue.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:09, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't see that an article with that name was ever created. So, how can it be "restored"?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:11, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

The issue is that the page is blocked to non-admins to prevent vandalism, but the suggestion above is not vandalism.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:21, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

But if the song is not notable ("if", I have no idea one way or the other), then there's no need for an article, and, as Gaijin42 says, unsalting it simply for a redirect seems like creating unnecessary controversy. BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 21:48, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Moot point. The disambiguation in the title makes a redirect pointless. Ansh666 03:30, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

How so? For readers familiar with our naming conventions and seeking information about the song, "Nigger (song)" is an obvious search term. Readers unfamiliar with our naming conventions might simply search by the title, at which point seeing "Nigger (song)" among the results would be very helpful.

Thus far, no valid reason to deny ВікіПЕДист's request has been given. Clawfinger discography#Nigger is an extant article section about a song titled Nigger. "Nigger (song)" is a plausible search term. Nigger#Music contains no mention of a song titled Nigger, so it isn't an appropriate target (and no other song with this title has been mentioned). The word "nigger" appears on our title blacklist to prevent vandalism, not to impose special restrictions on legitimate contributions because the word is controversial. Regardless, readers are unlikely to encounter the redirect without typing the word "nigger" or otherwise seeking information thereon, so it's difficult to foresee a realistic scenario in which the it provokes controversy. —David Levy 04:10, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Note that Salvidrim! has redirected the page name to Nigger (disambiguation)#Music (on which no other song titled Nigger is mentioned) without elaboration. Is the basis that readers might mistakenly refer to Rock n Roll Nigger by this title? —David Levy 08:08, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Can you tell me, why the page Nigger (Clawfinger song) is also blocked? --ВікіПЕДист (talk) 15:20, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Pretty sure "Nigger" is just blacklisted entirely. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Genesis creation narrative

Could we have some admin eyes at Talk:Genesis creation narrative? Specifically there seems to be a lot of battlegrounding going on, and some personal attacks to boot. I said a few weeks ago that I'd watch the page and block people who went overboard but I haven't had the time to do that, so more admin eyes would be appreciated. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:04, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I second that, there is a lot of emotion flying around there and far more heat than light being generated. I poked my nose in there briefly and made an offer to try and get a clearer picture of the situation and myself was rather harshly attacked. I'd suggest several admin eyes, and people who can all stay very, very neutral. Montanabw 20:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I was wondering if I should comment, but given User:Til Eulenspiegel's latest attack on me at Talk:Burrows Cave#Alexander Helios where I removed something because the wrong person was said to have suggested it (Til responds "I take it that according to Doug, we are not allowed to mention the name of Alexander Helios in the article, nor explain that he has anything whatsoever to do with this theory as the A&E Network show did, because that's "too sensitive"..." although my edit summary simply said "not Burrows' claim"- Russell Burrows that is). Til has a long history of attacks such as this. At Talk:Genesis creation narrative an editor has picked him up for saying things such as "your bigoted goal of removing Christianity's voice from wikipedia", "you eliminated Christianity from wikipedia", "you are so desperate to utterly remove your enemy, Christianity, from wikipedia". I also see phrases such as "That tired old lie won't fool anyone." I'm not saying everyone else is behaving perfectly there, but Til creates a confrontational attitude. He did at that talk page, he's doing it now at Talk:Burrows Cave. The problem with Til at Talk:Genesis creation narrative is an old one, see and . It's worth looking at Admins can read the rev/del'd material that brought this to ANI. There's more on other talk pages I could show but this is representative. I don't know what the solution is but I think that this sort of battlefield mentality has gone on long enough to need one. Dougweller (talk) 14:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

What creates a confrontational attitude is a couple editors with their heads so far up their ass they seriously try to argue that Christian viewpoints have no business in articles about Christianity because of "Conflict of Interest" and all articles about Christianity can therefore only be written by their detractors. I try to clarify to these people that since day one, Mormon views are mentioned on Mormon articles, Scientologist views are mentioned on Scientologist articles etc. but they use atrocious logic to throw every fallacy in the book into the discussion. I am attacking their atrocious logic only, and to claim that I am the source of all confrontation here is an underhanded and barely disguised attempt to remove me from the debate. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:40, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

It's the most recent page move request (Talk:Genesis creation narrative#Requested move) that's the problem. It's been open since Dec. 26, with constructive discussion ending long ago. A neutral admin should simply close it. I think that Til Eulenspiegel has been on the receiving end of a lot of baiting there (and has been taking the bait). Any blocks would have to include a whole cast of characters. I think that if an admin just closed this latest RM (the 11th for this article's title by my count), it would be akin to declaring "Let there be Light!". First Light (talk) 15:22, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

No, you create confrontation by assuming bad faith. Our first interaction started off by you saying, "This response seems like a bias against using any source that indicates Christianity in the source, as part of a trend of increased bigotry to get that viewpoint declared illegitimate according to wikipedia." --NeilN 15:32, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Probably an edit conflict there, since I never said that. Either way, the bad blood on this article's title goes way back. Closing this move request now would end the current problem, at least until the next move request. First Light (talk) 15:44, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

@First Light Why did you change my indentation? I've change it back as it was clear I was replying to Til. --NeilN 15:49, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. I was assuming, wrongly apparently, that consecutive unindented comments are confusing to those trying to make sense of a discussion. Apologies, First Light (talk) 15:54, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

One way to show who you are replying to is "@First Light" etc. First Light, the point I am trying to make is that this isn't unusual behavior by Til. I didn't bait him at Talk:Burrows Cave. I've given examples of other times he was reported here or at ANI. Closing the discussion is a good idea, but won't deal with the basic problem. Dougweller (talk) 16:54, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Review of block

• Nascarman1 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)

I indeffed this user for creating inappropriate articles, removal of templates, and WP:NOTHERE. Because this does not appear to be run-of-the-mill vandalism, I've brought it here for others to look at. A review at the user's talk page (including a final warning from Gogo Dodo), contribution history, and deleted contribution history is illuminating. The user's two interests appear to be fire departments and NASCAR, and he's repeatedly creating really silly articles about fire departments, and one-sentence articles about NASCAR (teams, drivers, etc.). The articles keep getting tagged for speedy delete. Some get deleted, the tags of some are declined (I've even done that because I'm not sure of my ground when it comes to sports notability), and others redirected.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:39, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Prolly a stern talking to and pointing out that single line articles generally are frowned upon might help and that we do like to see references for what is in articles? WTH - he might even be salvageable, 2 days is not a long time for an editor to enter and be ejected :(. Of course I am not second-guessing the block after a final warning, but think perhaps in future cases we might offer some better rope at the 2 day mark? Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:05, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I gave the user some advice on my talk page, but they don't seem to have taken it. I ignored his question about he can tag and delete articles (part of the WP:NOTHERE).--Bbb23 (talk) 20:16, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

More evidence of cluelessness on the user's talk page, as well as threats of disruption post-block:

I have read the article on the board about my recent blocking. I am working hard to block the individual who blocked me. I am a very strong believer in equality, and I know the folks at Misplaced Pages are too, so I know that I have the same rights on here to block other people as they have done. The page said I was doing inappropriate articles, which I never have done. I am already sending in a request to be unblocked, and if that fails I will be creating a new account on a different computer.

--Bbb23 (talk) 21:29, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Indeed the editor is clueless. This the normal state of affairs for a new editor. Given that the editor has been here for 2 days, had a total of 47 mainspace, 2 talk and ~4 user talk, it's had to see how WP:NOTHERE applies -- the editor clearly wants to contribute, they just don't know how. They should be unblocked with firm instructions not to create any redirects or new articles until they get the lay of the land and perhaps some direction to the teahouse. The silliness about "blocking" and creating a new account should, of course, be ignored. NE Ent 03:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

References

1. Cite error: The named reference Baseball Bugs was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
2. If the were competent they'd be accused of being a sock.

What earned them their final warning from me was the first redirect they created for Jim Rosenblum Racing. I gave them the final warning after noticing the previous warnings given to them. I didn't check over their previous edits when I issued the warning. After now reviewing all of their edits, I suspect that the editor means well and should be given another chance. The redirect I deleted was their only vandalism edit that I can see. Their unblock has been declined, so perhaps we should see what they do after reading NE Ent's advice. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:11, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't call that "advice" except in the broadest sense. NE Ent spoonfed the user as to what to say in an unblock request. So, let's say the user makes another unblock request repeating what NE Ent said they should say - we're supposed to accept that as credible?--Bbb23 (talk) 09:02, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• I see an enthusiastic but misguided newbie whose talk page was plastered with templates and warnings without anyone extending a friendly helping hand until NE Ent came along. Sadly all too common here. Thrub (talk) 08:44, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:Assume Ignorance? ES&L 13:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Vandal category needs removal

Now blocked editor Hole rabbit (talk · contribs) recently added "Category:Shits" to {{OW}}. Before this was reverted, it was added to 85 IP pages. Can someone unlink these, possibly with a mass rollback or such?--Auric talk 21:00, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't need it, MediaWiki will sort it automatically. Not immediately, unless you do a null edit on each user page, to force a page recreation using the now-clean template. Any editor could do this. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:11, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thanks.--Auric talk 21:21, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, what exactly is the purpose of {{OW}}? Erpert 06:53, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Mainly for school IPs, dynamic IPs or business IPs, etc., where it is obvious the current user does not need to see a talk page full of crap from 11 years ago, but the history may be useful to an investigation or whatnot. Rgrds. --64.85.214.127 (talk) 11:20, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Closers for Pending Changes RfC

Please see the discussion at WT:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2014#Closers. It's been difficult getting closers for some of these thornier RfCs. We're hoping that one or more admins (preferably) will indicate their interest in closing this one, well before the 30 days run. Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 21:44, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Expressed my interest to be one of a triumvirate there ES&L 13:36, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

RfC of interest

Administrators and other editors here may perhaps be interested in Misplaced Pages talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#RfC about listing discussions. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:19, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Crashsnake

I am looking for input on what to do with User:Crashsnake. I have seen his name pop up a lot both on my watchlist, and in other places. A perusal of his talk page going back over three years, many editors have tried to reach out to him to get his attention and try to communicate with him. He does not respond on his talk page, and rarely leaves edit summaries. I am concerned that we have a basic competence issue with this user , who is apparently often described as disruptive and engages in edit warring.

I considered starting a user RFC to bring up these issues, but this user's particular non-communicativeness makes me concerned that such a thing would be pointless. Reviewing his contributions list on user talk pages (with none on his own page), article talk pages, Misplaced Pages pages and Misplaced Pages talk pages reveals fewer than 10 total edits between those spaces in over a 3 year span. While a user is not required to communicate in any of these venues, it is important to respond to people when they bring issues to your attention, and the fact that he has used these at all tells me that he does know how to use them, so the only conclusion I can come to is that he chooses not to communicate with other editors.

His block log reveals that he has been blocked twice by J Greb and once by Nightscream, both of whom made multiple efforts to reach out to him before blocking him. Spidey104 has also made quite a bit of effort to reach out to him, again with no response. What, if anything, can be done to get this user to communicate with other editors rather than shutting everyone else out and going back to the same behaviors to get his way? If there is nothing that can be done, should we consider a topic ban or more serious measures? BOZ (talk) 21:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Given that they're not responding in any way, a topic ban is largely meaningless. A wake up block might be necessary. Blackmane (talk) 22:24, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Reference desk topic ban proposals

Background:

• prior ANI thread
• current AN discussion of close of above

Editors listed alphabetically NE Ent 22:07, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs

Baseball Bugs is topic banned from the reference desk to include subpages and talkpages thereof. Ban may be appealed after six months.

Support

Oppose

Discuss

Medeis

Medeis is topic banned from the reference desk to include subpages and talkpages thereof. Ban may be appealed after six months.

Support

Oppose

Discuss

The Rambling Man

The Rambling Man is topic banned from the reference desk to include subpages and talkpages thereof. Ban may be appealed after six months.

Support

Oppose

Discuss

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Administrative backlog