Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:57, 9 May 2016

• 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 6 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 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 27 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 25 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 94 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 73 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 64 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 55 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 48 days ago on 22 November 2024) Legobot has removed the RFC notice. Can we please get an interdependent close. TarnishedPath 23:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RFC_Science-Based_Medicine

(Initiated 33 days ago on 7 December 2024) slowed for a while Bluethricecreamman (talk) 06:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Deletion discussions

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

(Initiated 20 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 106 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 85 days ago on 16 October 2024) Experienced closer requested. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:57, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

 Closed by editor S Marshall. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.  20:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Winter fuel payment abolition backlash#Merge proposal

(Initiated 72 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 63 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 43 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

Someone is proposing a community ban

I have moved this discussion from ANI to here because admin user:KrakatoaKatie commented in it below that "Community ban discussions belong at AN". I hope we are now in the correct place. Tradedia 02:55, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Discussion here with examples provided: . Long story short, User:LightandDark2000 appears to be well versed in Misplaced Pages rules enough to defend himself lawyer style by insisting he acts in good faith and shouldn't be harassed or punitively blocked, but still refuses to engage users' criticism of his editing style. Criticisms include stretching ambiguous sources to support his edits, reverting sourced edits then not undoing that when corrected despite the restriction posed on us by the 1RR, and only engaging in minimal discussion whenever we try to bring up the topic. As I said in the discussion, this dispute dates back to at least June: .

Note this module is subject to WP:GS/SCW&ISIL and a 1RR. As I proposed in that discussion, letting an administrator talk to him may be more effective since he doesn't listen to us. NightShadeAEB (talk) 15:28, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Community ban discussions belong at AN, not on an article talk page. It certainly does seem that this editor is tendentious. The block log is longer than my arm. Katie 16:39, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

"The block log is longer than my arm" - That kind of jaded hyperbole is completely unnecessary, and in this case quite disingenuous. Just sayin'... - WOLFchild 21:26, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Wouldn't CB discussions be at WP:ANI (here)? WP:AN is mostly more esoteric admin notices, and isn't what "the community" rather, the subset of the community with any stomach for these discussions) pays much attention to.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  22:38, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

While AN is the better place for these things, it usually gets decided on ANI anyway. Everything happens on ANI. -- The Voidwalker 23:15, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Regardless as to whether or not ANI is the proper venue for discussing community bans, I have placed a hat on the discussion on the talk page, redirecting users to this thread. -- The Voidwalker 23:46, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I recently requested to get a topic ban lifted on WP:ANI only to be told toward the end when it was clear it would not be lifted that I should have made the request at WP:AN. While it is clear the article talk page is not the correct place for discussion of bans, we need clearer instructions for editors on where is the correct place. DrChrissy 23:54, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

The problem is deeper and more persistent than the above seems to indicate. User:LightandDark2000 is a POV pusher who has been a very disruptive editor for a long time on the Syria module. His bad faith, bad source edits that broke long established consensus has turned all editors against him. You can read entire sections of complaints about him on the talk pages: Talk:Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War/Archive 60#I propose community ban on user:LightandDark2000 editing Syria- and Iraq-related maps, Talk:Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War/Archive 50#LightandDark2000, Talk:Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War/Archive 60#Bad Edit: Raqqa Frontline and Module talk:Iraqi insurgency detailed map/Archive 4#User:LightandDark2000.

He has a habit of deleting complaint messages from his own talk page so that it would not reveal who he really is. Take a look at the history of edits of his talk page and you will discover dozens and dozens of deleted complaint messages from just the last year. Let me illustrate his general attitude by giving as an example, his latest "deletion". A user in good faith writes to him: "Your source: http://en.ypgnews.tk/2016/03/15/anti-is-forces-close-in-on-groups-raqqa-hq.html is a dead link. Please provide another source." You can verify that the link is indeed a dead link since it just leads you to the "main page" of the website (en.ypgnews.com). User:LightandDark2000 deletes the message with the edit summary: "It is not a dead link. Fix your computer." You can even see that in this same edit, he increments his "vandalism counter" ({{User:UBX/vandalized|47}}) by 1, implying that the user's message on his talk page, was vandalism!

Also there was a report about him at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive904#User:LightandDark2000 intentionally misinterpret sources for editing Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War and similar pages where he was blocked for one month. The mess he creates regularly takes time to be cleaned. He injects in the map his POV pushing and total disregard for other editors’ opinions, sources and established consensus & rules. He has done nothing but make the map wrong with his POV pushing & unresponsive behavior towards other editors. I am asking for him to be permanently banned from Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map. Tradedia 17:33, 19 March 2016 (UTC) @bot: do not archive yet. 19:49, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I have noticed that almost every single feed in the links provided are run/dominated by users that hate me. I see this, as well as this entire proposal, as unfairly biased. You cannot proposal a ban, or a block, just because someone has made a number of mistakes (in good faith, I might add). By the way, a permanent ban is unnecessary overkill (See WP:PUNITIVE). I have never tried to "ruin the map" or "vandalize", or "force my own point of view", I only tried to edit honestly according to the rules of Misplaced Pages, and recently, the localized rules added in in the sanctions. It's true that I have made mistakes. But everyone made mistakes, and I have always tried to correct my mistakes when I realized that I had made some, or at least brought it to discussion. Blocks and sanctions are not meant to be punitive either, so I can't see how this proposal (especially given the bias of the user who originally proposed it) has any legitimacy as well. If we were to follow this line of logic, every one of the users who has been complaining/pushing for me to be "permanently banned" should be banned as well. Not only have I been harassed on the Syria module talk, but I have also been attacked by a couple of users on the talk page, as you can see here. Why should I be banned when I am editing out of good faith, have absolutely no intention of disrupting or vandalizing the map, and there are also a number of users I get along with quite well on the module/article in question. By the way, there are a number of users (including some of those pushing for this ban) who have committed much more "POV" edits than those I have allegedly or unintentionally done (some of the mhave also engaged in serious cases of edit warring in the past few months). The users that are biased against be are currently dominating this discussion, and they are ganging up om me in an attempt to kick me off the module; I feel like I am being harassed through this proposal. Also, this "good faith" editor 2601:C7:8301:8D74:1DB4:BFDC:1999:782E that Tradedia cited is actually a WP:SOCKPUPPET of User:Pbfreespace3, where there is an ongoing SPI investigation regarding his active user of sockpuppets to cirvumvent his block. The fact that such biased users were cited as "good examples," including a sockpuppet, astonishes me and makes me question the very purpose of this proposal. I strongly believe that the users pushing for this ban want to ban me out of annoyance and punitive motives, not because of any good faith. I have also noticed that the vast majority of users who commented in the recent ban proposal (including the original proposal on the Syria module talk) are the users who are biased against me, so please note this carefully. And pertaining to the Syria module talk, a user there said, "I wouldn't go so far as to ban him..." and another said that "I think that not need a ban for editor user:LightandDark2000 he sometimes made mistakes but he said that he will no longer break the rules so I think do not need to judge him so severely. Each of us can make a mistake but it is always necessary to give a chance to mend..." If we were to ban or block a user every time they made a mistake on these "hot/contested topic" areas, we would hardly have any editors left to edit articles in any of those errors. Therefore, in light of the circumstances and the people involved in this proposal, I believe that this ban proposal should be declined. LightandDark2000 (talk) 07:38, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I will respond to the main points of your defense paragraph:

• You say: “almost every single feed in the links provided are run/dominated by users that hate me.” I have counted a total of 16 different users on these feeds. So that’s a lot of “haters”! The relevant question is why a lot of these users “hate” you? Did it occur to you that this is because of your edits and attitude?
• You mention the important notion of assuming “good faith”. However after a while, the assumption of good faith can be completely obliterated by months and months of watching you make dishonest edit after dishonest edit.
• You invoke WP:PUNITIVE. However, you have to realize that the ban is not being requested to punish you, but rather to protect the map from your damaging edits that make it wrong and ruin its reputation, therefore spoiling the hard work of many honest editors.
• You claim that you have been “harassed” and “attacked”. However, users criticizing your edits should not be viewed as harassment or personal attacks. These users have nothing against you as a person. They have a problem with your edits. Instead of feeling like you have been victimized, you should instead ask yourself the question of why there is so much negativity around you. Opening a section discussing your bad edits and attitude is legitimate because they harm the encyclopedia, even if the venue should have been ANI instead of the module’s talk page.
• You mention that “there are a number of users (including some of those pushing for this ban) who have committed much more POV edits” than you. Other users behaving badly is not a valid excuse. If someone is breaking Misplaced Pages policy, then you should report them, as I have done myself this week, and this has resulted in blocks.
• Your bringing up accusations of sockpuppetry is really beside the point. Whether the IP is a sockpuppet or not is a matter to be determined at SPI. What is in focus here is your behavior and your general attitude in responding to valid questions. As your history of edits shows, you also respond the same way to users you do not accuse of sockpuppetry.
• You mention that “a user said, "I wouldn't go so far as to ban him..." However, this is the same user who subsequently opened this section here at ANI. So he must have changed his mind given your continued unresponsiveness… I think that your reaction to the latest section about you on the module’s talk page has been very disappointing to many users who feel that this is now a hopeless case. Tradedia 11:50, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I did not know that he was banned before for the same issue, which is why I did not support a ban. I still don't, I'd rather a moderator gives him a clear warning that if his behaviour persists, he'd see a topic ban or block. To be fair I was gonna bring up the vandalism counter myself, but after reading this discussion of the sockpuppetry investigation I realized it had a good explanation. The rest of the deletions do not, however. I brought this to ANI because I wasn't aware of what the protocol is for someone proposing a ban in a talk page, but it was clear there was a dispute and I figured an admin would be listened to by the user, since he doesn't listen to anyone else.

User:LightandDark2000 I keep repeating this every time, the biggest issue is your unresponsiveness to discussion. All of us regular contributors regularly engage each other in thorough discussion whenever a controversy emerges, you don't. I don't want to project onto your intentions, but your extensive use of Misplaced Pages policy links to defend yourself shows me that you are completely aware of what type of community Misplaced Pages is supposed to be, and this makes the assumption of good faith really hard to maintain. It's true users lose patience and regrettably resort to frustrated outbursts, but that does not erase the original criticism that you seek to ignore.

It is very hard to defend you considering this has been ongoing for a year. If you wish to avoid being blocked, as there appear to be growing calls for that, this is the right moment to show you understand what's wrong and pledge to right it. NightShadeAEB (talk) 13:21, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

And I must add, your claim that people are only criticizing you because they hate you personally is a sign of WP:CABALS and WP:MPOV. The ban proposals aren't to punish you, but to prevent disruptions to the map. You must focus on how disruptions can be prevented rather than on how it's unfair to you as a person. NightShadeAEB (talk) 13:37, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• Enough, I suggest that (although I will probably insert random horrible thing here just for being the one to suggest it) User:LightandDark2000 receive a indefinite ban from Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map, due to repeated irresponsible editing as described above. Happy_Attack_Dog (Throw Me a Bone) 16:32, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• Indefinite ban, for sure. BTW, he continues to misinterpret sources even today, like here, when he uses sentence "With all hilltops around the city captured" to justify changing village (not hill!), as far as 17 km from the city edge, to gov-controlled. If this isn't playing stupid (I don't know politically correct way to say this), I really don't know what is. Please stop this guy, he is really taking everyone's time and he should be dealt with like any other vandal. --Hogg 22 (talk) 12:24, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Please stop with the personal attacks. It's not civil, and it demonstrates poor character and an unwillingness to work with others. You are also confusing vandalism with good faith edits made in error. LightandDark2000 (talk) 08:55, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

How many times a person can ignore what he is told and do it his way before it's obvious he is playing stupid? 5 times? 10? 20? I think You passed all that limits. Assuming good faith doesn't mean letting one person making idiots of 10 others indefinitely. --Hogg 22 (talk) 09:05, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately despite all appeals User:LightandDark2000 continues to play lawyer and deliberately ignores the subject matter. He does not respond to criticisms while asking detractors to remain civil, he uses the lack of civility as a smokescreen to avoid having to listen to the discussion at all. This is extremely frustrating and is the cause of why too many editors lose their patience with you in the first place. Those that attack you could well be wrong, but your unresponsiveness is itself the original sin. NightShadeAEB (talk) 23:12, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for not addressing this earlier, but I'm quite busy as a person. This is the reason for my lack of participation in many discussions (some of which I regret). I probably could have done better, and I am sorry about by lack of input in many past discussion, but I do try my best to respond to discussions involving crucial issues. I will make more of an effort to engage in future discussions, where or when my attention is required. LightandDark2000 (talk) 02:10, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

So you are too "busy as a person" to "participate in discussions", yet you find the time to make 500 edits in the last 40 days? Tradedia 09:42, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

LightandDark2000 continues to disrupt Syria map page. More here: user: LightandDark2000, Qaryatan, Syria tell and al-Mihassah (permalink). Please, block him. --Hogg 22 (talk) 09:22, 20 April 2016 (UTC) P.S. There is more! Check the talk page with complaints. --Hogg 22 (talk) 09:38, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Is the ban being proposed a ban from the site, or a topic ban? --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 18:51, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

@Rubbish computer: What is being proposed is a ban from Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map. Tradedia 03:43, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Topic ban appeal

section originally titled "Standard offer request", retitled by Salvidrim! on 17:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC).

I typically spend about 1,000 hours a year working on Misplaced Pages. I started out mostly working on energy related topics, but then got interested in becoming an admin and created this alternate username for that purpose, plus for other reasons. While I apparently disagreed with some on some issues that is no way to resolve disputes, but while blocked I simply looked for something else to do and found a home in creating and translating SVGs, which occupies most of my time now (so far I have created over 1000 images, with one that has over 7500 translations). I qualify for the standard offer because I meet all the criteria - over six months, active in another project, never violated the block. In the meantime I made a list of over 250 edits I found that needed to be made, and have worked my way through about 1/3 of them and will get to the rest as soon as I can, but the standard offer will help greatly because there are some edits that the restrictions on my account prevent me from doing. I will actually only be making a few edits each week here (after the backlog is cleared), as there is a backlog of over 6000 SVGs to create and over 6000 that need translations. Each restriction means only one thing - an edit does not get done that would help the project. Apteva (talk) 16:09, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

• You are not actually blocked? Or is this an appeal of a restriction you are under? Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:19, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
• Do you mean you want your other account unblocked and/or that you want to be allowed to edit from other accounts? "Per the consensus at the discussion at WP:AN, you are restricted to editing solely from the Apteva account from now on." That restriction was placed in Jan 2013. Why should it be lifted? Fences&Windows 17:07, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
• Current restrictions (per WP:EDR):

1. Apteva is topic banned indefinitely from modifying or discussing the use of dashes, hyphens, or similar types of punctuation, broadly construed, including but not limited to at the manual of style and any requested move discussion, and from advocating against the MOS being applicable to article titles
2. Apteva is topic banned from proposing the removal of his existing restrictions, at any Misplaced Pages venue, until 31st January 2014, and is limited to one appeal every six months after that.

They are currently appealable. Technically only the first once is relevant (as the second one becomes inapplicable if there are no existing sanctions). This isn't really a "WP:STANDARDOFFER" both more a simple topic ban appeal. I've (boldly) retitled this section as such. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

• Apteva, can you give one or more example of "edits that the restrictions on {your} account prevent {you} from doing"? Can you provide specific examples of constructive work on other projects in the topic of dashes/hyphens/etc.? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, the one that I came across the other day is I was updating the SEGS page, and I noticed that there were two types of dashes used and I wanted to consolidate those to the endash and could not. So the best I could do is use the correct one in the section that I added. Another example is if I take a photograph of a location that would identify me, I can not use or add it to a page without revealing my real world location. As such I need to be able to use other account names. We are not talking about a lot of edits, maybe a few a year I would guess. The standard offer removes all restrictions. While I am unblocked, which is hugely beneficial, what I really need is a removal of all restrictions, so that I can contribute fully to the project, without having one hand tied behind my back for reasons that no longer exist. This was a fun file that I fixed. It used both commas and periods for a decimal place and two hyphens and two endashes. Or something. I did not check to see if they were really hyphens (they are). I have seen a file named using a minus sign for a hyphen. Apteva (talk) 01:14, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support Seems to have a clue now. Katie 03:15, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose "I noticed that there were two types of dashes used and I wanted to consolidate those to the endash and could not. So the best I could do is use the correct one in the section that I added." So, the reason for lifting the topic ban on modifying dashes is so he can modify dashes he thinks are incorrect? I singularly fail to see how lifting a topic ban from someone, that was *specifically* put in place to restrict their editing in an area, to allow them to edit in that area, is a good thing. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:57, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
  • The reason is so that errors do not stay in articles. Sure someone else might notice it but how long has that been there before I noticed it (over two years), and what is the reason for insisting that I can not fix it? I am not going by what I think it should be I am going by what the MOS says it should be. That is why we have a MOS, so that punctuation is not all over the place like that but follows a standard. Whenever I do not know what to use I refer to the MOS to find out. What is the reason for wanting it to stay wrong? Saying I cannot fix errors when I see them is not a good idea. But I want to remind you that two years ago I did have an opinion on what it should be and tried to get the MOS changed to address that. But as that failed I moved on and I ask everyone to allow me to simply edit using that MOS. Apteva (talk) 05:22, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Template misused in Titles alert—patrol+Bot+Solution needed

Posting this here as the issue needs a long term solution, then bot cleanup to implement. re: This edit & action - Note the subtext comment explaining the problem. (Duplicated here for complete picture, emphasis added):

PROBLEM... Template NOT to be used in Lead... see {{IPAc-en/doc}} page, but needs be avoided in first paras of articles. {{IPAc-en|m|ə|n|ˈ|r|oʊ}}; NOTE, mouse-over hoover on List of Presidents of the United States showed most of the first ten also NOT having the template. Perhaps subst'ing the output will be acceptable, suspect the issue is noprint element or other incompatible generated script control element

• Template:IPAc-en(edit talk links history)

1. Suspect the problem is not to general reader
   1. but only affects those of us which have script assisted pre-peak over wikilinks enabled in our .CSS file, which is to say most computer savvy veteran editors
   2. but... at this point: that is only a hypothesis and guess!
2. That means the scope and exact nature of the problem needs be revealed before any general solution can be adopted... hence this body is best suited to resolve speedily.
3. Problem is use of a template in Lead para, which probably has little use outside leads: but for which the template usage /doc page WARNS PROMINENTLY to NOT use it in leads.
4. I saw the problem by hoovering over the link to President James Monroe. I saw similar malformed... Someone after Jackson.
   1. The hoover issue manifests on these two pages:
      1. James Buchanan
      2. Abraham Lincoln... skipping most back to Washington.
   2. Have to suspect, to believe even, given the format observed there are thousands of biographies and history articles that may be affected; these are likely to use the pronunciation-date range format as MOS preferences.
   3. obviously parsing the 'whatlinkshere' manually will show the same issue I observed.
5. The real issue is resolving how speedily a resolution of this problem is needed, how widespread and problematic, and how it's to be resolved.
   1. If, as I suspect the issue only appears to those of us hoovering a link, IMHO, we can all just learn to live with it, and it's use in the lead can be tolerated; hence the template warning should be altered a bit.
   2. If, as is possible, this also has issues in being printed, or Iphones or other page rendering issues to the general public, then the matter becomes far more urgent.

Need I say more! I leave the matter in your hands. // FrankB 17:44, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

This is a technical problem. Kaldari added that notice in the doc only recently, without explanation, so it is best to ask him. For me, I can see no fault in its rendering on the page itself. The only problem I see is that the IPA rendering is left blank in Popups. It affects any language, and IPA pronounciations are regularly, if not mostly, used in the lead. If anything, the issue should be brought up there. But it is no reason to remove any IPA template from the lead in any articles. Therefor, I will put it back and remove the notice. Popups is not a core part of the software, threfor never a reason to remove any templates from articles. -- ] {{talk}} 18:04, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

@Edokter and Fabartus: The notice I added in the docs says "Per WP:LEAD, do not use this template in the lead section for common English words." In other words, don't add a pronunciation for words like Monday, pub, bean, rose, pencil, mind, bus, Earth, etc. (all of which until recently included pronunciations). My note had nothing to do with technical issues, only MOS guidelines. Kaldari (talk) 18:39, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, I believe all parenthetical phrases are stripped from pop-ups and search snippets, but that should not affect use of the IPAc-en template. Kaldari (talk) 18:45, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Ah, dude! Want to explain how date ranges in the two president examples I linked above ARE NOT parenthetical expressions?
In any case, if this is only an editor popup, I have no beef with it. Otherwise the two leading whitespaces and semicolon left dangling after the '(' are nearly as objectionable as a hanging chad to a die-hard Democrat. // FrankB 17:19, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Neve-selbert.

I'm requesting that Neve-selbert's indef block be reduced to a 1-month block. The individual hadn't vandalized articles or used sock-puppets & has promised to stay away from the List of state leaders in Year articles & the Israel/Palestine topic. GoodDay (talk) 18:37, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

• Somewhat on the fence here Having interacted with Neve-selbert somewhat, I can only say they have a great deal of heart in contributing to the project, which is commendable and with all the good faith in the world, I'd be supportive of the reduction. However, their condition also leads to tricky situations, such as the one that got them blocked. There's nothing to say that the same situation that occurred on the List of State Leaders won't happen somewhere else, simply because there is no way of telling what their compulsion would latch on to. The biggest question would be how those situations would be dealt with? They obviously can't be article banned one at a time whenever their compulsiveness kicks in. Blackmane (talk) 15:31, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I was hoping he could be unblocked on May 17 (2016), which would mark a month being blocked. We should be helping him, instead of throwing him away. GoodDay (talk) 17:40, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

All the good faith in the world cannot assist those who have medical conditions. No editor should be expected to do that. I'm not averse to an unblock, just playing devils advocate here. Blackmane (talk)\

• Oppose Neve-selbert is currently unable to abide by community required standards of conduct and editing behaviour. That this may be the result of a medical condition is irrelevant. They have been given many many many chances. They have had (probably as a result of their condition) a far more understanding tolerance of their behaviour than most editors would receive. If I or many others had done a lot of the stuff Neve has, we found be facing community bans rather than just indef blocks. Offenses such as; edit-warring, personal attacks, editing against consensus etc. Repeated talkpage promises to change their behaviour have been broken - probably due to their condition making Neve *unable* to keep their promises, not out of malice but compulsion. At this point they have zero credibility with any statement they are going to be able to change their behaviour or live up to the community required standards. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:26, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Admins disagreeing on unblock

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

And I'm one of them, kind-of.

Some days ago, I blocked Hijiri88 with a rationale of WP:BATTLEGROUND (no link, but a link was present in his previous block, so presumably he was familiar with it) because of this edit. It's a two-week block. Hijiri proceeded to request unblock, but his request was declined by HighInBC with statements such as Since you don't seem to realize how this was inappropriate I don't think an unblock would make sense. Yesterday, TParis asked me to unblock, a request that I was inclined to grant (I don't want to reject this kind of request from another admin) until I saw the unblock request and its rejection, but I hesitate unilaterally to unblock someone after learning that another admin is so firmly opposed to unblock.

So basically, you have HighInBC strongly opposed to unblock, TParis requesting unblock, and me in the middle, not quite sure what to do. Sounds like a perfect "ask the community" situation. Unblock? Modify the block? Leave the block unchanged? Your opinions would be appreciated. Nyttend (talk) 11:55, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Call a compromise and reduce it to a one week block including time served. Blackmane (talk) 12:20, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

(ec) I would say since after your block an unblock was rejected by another admin, you can not unilaterally unblock them. I would just leave the matter to the fourth admin (possibly by asking the user to file another unblock request).--Ymblanter (talk) 12:21, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

• If this is a request for feedback on how to handle things in general, I'd say a reasonable approach is (a) if blocking admin is in favor of unblock, they break the tie, and (b) if blocking admin is unsure or against unblock, then seek consensus here.

If this is actually a request for such a consensus here, then my opinion hinges on whether Hijiri has been part of the feuding that recently led to my blocking MaranoFan and Calvin999 for 1 month. If so, then I strongly favor leaving it in place, as it is already half of the duration I'd have used. If it is not, then I have no opinion. I know it involves Calvin999, but I don't know if it's related to the wider conflct. I don't have time to research, so I'll hope/assume that someone will know and interpret this accordingly. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:12, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Floquenbeam, the edit I linked above as the basis for the block (another copy of that link) was a comment at one user's talk page, which created a new section with the title of ] is blocked for battleground behaviour. Nyttend (talk) 17:36, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I have no objection if another admin comes to another conclusion regarding the unblock request. I have no strong feelings on the matter. My unblock review was part of me going through the unblock queue and was based on my analysis of the quality of the block and its ongoing preventative nature. If Nyttend or TParis(or anyone else) feels that the block has served its purpose then I have no intention of standing in their way. Thank you for consulting me. HighInBC 16:23, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

• I've no doubt the block was warranted. Grave dancing is just going to sour the situation worse when Calvin999 returns. But this comment pretty much puts the preventative issue to rest. Hijiri88 seems to appear to agree that it's only going to sully the situation and will not engage in further grave dancing.--v/r - TP 17:36, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't know about Hijiri88's participation but both Calvin and MF are asking for an IBan but I know that admins are leery of imposing them because they can be gamed. When these editors get unblocked or their blocks expire, they will all have to increase their level of restraint. For some reason, it seems like a herculean task for some editors to just ignore each other. I hope this situation has a more positive outcome. Liz 21:47, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

• Note This block has since been reversed. Everyone involved with the block and reviews seems to be in agreement. Unless anyone has other concerns about this I think it can be closed. HighInBC 16:26, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Article redirected without consensus

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

The article on Spy-Fi was nominated for deletion despite having up to ten refs. The result of the discussion was no consensus and now user:Betty Logan redirected without discussion. There are a number of editors still working on the article and an elaboration weather to split sections. I don't know how to bring it back, but it was not done without proper discussion. I don't know how to undo this move. It seems only an admin can do it. Please help undo it. That article is still being worked on by multiple editors and it was moved without any explanation.--Taeyebaar (talk) 23:00, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

• I moved the article because the term "spy-fi" has two distinct definitions: for many years it has denoted "spy fiction" in the publishing industry, but in the last decade the term has been coined to denote a sub-genre of spy-fiction and science-fiction. With this edit Taeyebaar made it clear that he intends the article to focus exclusively on the sub-genre so I disambiguated the article to make it clear which definition the article covers. Betty Logan (talk) 23:33, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Curious about pending changes on talk pages

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

I know it's not for talk pages, and I don't plan on using it there. I was just wondering if it is technically possible for an admin to do so. PC isn't one of the options on the protection screen for talk pages, just edit and move protection. I'd think that a dev would be able to do this without much trouble, but is there any sort of workaround that would allow an admin to add pending changes to a talk page? --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:08, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Our current configuration does not support this, see Special:StablePages for the combinations that are supported. I don't see a reason it could not be enabled project wide for other namespaces if we had community consensus for it. — xaosflux 02:24, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

mw:Extension:FlaggedRevs#Basic_settings shows that $wgFlaggedRevsNamespaces could be updated to include other namespaces, this would be project-wide. — xaosflux 02:30, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

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

Sorry to be so bold as to delete another person's post, but this is very serious. This edit needs to be blocked out. Whatever your feelings towards Alansohn, NO ONE should have their real identity "outed" on Misplaced Pages. This can be dealt with via email. Can an admin please remove this? This is serious. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:11, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

You should recommend as well, the deleted post be strickend from this page's 'history'. GoodDay (talk) 23:37, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Review of ANI close

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

Discussion

I am asking for a review of the ANI close here. The main issue is a specific reading of the rev-del policy by the closer: that the views of the non-admins are irrelevant in considering whether there is a consensus for a rev-del, even when the rev-deled text is available for all to read. This is in contrast to clear direction in WP:REVDEL: Material must be grossly offensive, with little likelihood of significant dissent about its removal. Otherwise it should not be removed. Clearly the views of non-admins can indicate dissent, at the very least. It seems to me that the reading is contrary to the spirit, and quite possibly the letter of the policy.

Discussion with the closer here (permalink). Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 00:53, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Survey

• Overturn close: Per my statement above. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 01:05, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
• Kingsindian (talk · contribs) is intentionally cherry picking the policy. I've pointed it out twice that the policy says:
  • "RevisionDelete allows selective redaction of posts and log entries by administrators, as well as peer review by any administrator of the correct use of the tool."
  • "They are subject to review by other administrators (who can see redacted material), and to reversal upon clear, wider consensus."
• I can only suspect that the omission of these quotes by Kingindian, after being pointed to those lines twice, is an intentional omission to mislead. I agree that when the material is available on the internet, that review should be possible by editors as well and that an RFC be started. BU_Rob13 (talk · contribs) was kind enough to start one here. At this point, I think Kingsindian needs to WP:DROPTHESTICK.--v/r - TP 01:06, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
• Close this as WP:FORUMSHOP. I started an RfC to address the questions surrounding this closure. I heavily disagree with the close because I believe the section of the policy quoted by Kingsindian above implies that no consensus should default to "don't delete", but it's improper to have two discussions running at the same time on the same question. It's much better to address this question more generally with an RfC, because I can absolutely see where TParis is coming from. The policy is not at all clear on this issue. ~ Rob 01:09, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: There is no forum shopping. The RfC you opened is whether the RevDel policy should be changed. This is whether the RevDel policy, as written, was correctly applied. I pointed out this on TParis' talk page. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 01:18, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Brianpeppers123456

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

I'm trying to post warnings to Brianpeppers123456 but it's coming up as a permission error/blacklisted page. Need an admin to assist, though given this user's early edits, I suspect their time here may be limited. Valenciano (talk) 09:31, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked for inappropriate username and vandalism. CIreland (talk) 09:51, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Motion: Oversight block appeals (Oversight-l)

Original discussion

For this motion there are 14 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Appeals of blocks that have been marked by an oversighter as oversight blocks should be sent to the oversight team via email (Oversight-llists.wikimedia.org) to be decided by the English Misplaced Pages oversighters, or to the Arbitration Committee. Blocks may still be marked by the blocking oversighter as appealable only to the Arbitration Committee, per the 2010 statement, in which case appeals must only be directed to the Arbitration Committee.

Enacted - Miniapolis 15:58, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Motion: Oversight block appeals (Oversight-l)

For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 16:49, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

• I really can't make heads or tails of this announcement. I have absolutely no idea what this means and it seems absurdly bureaucratic. New England Cop (talk) 06:45, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

  If a block is designated as an Oversight block in the block message, it is only appealable to the Oversight team or the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, as circumstances permit, an Oversight team member may designate a block as only appealable to the Arbitration Committee. Nakon 06:57, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Your opinion please

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

Wasickta has filed a COI complaint against Alansohn on COIN, Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Local Politician Shaping Views Using Misplaced Pages: Conflict Of Interest. I looked into some of the evidence and found nothing there to support the claims. Whatever the merits of that complaint are, Wasickta is, I think, taking my statements as a reason to start disrupting some stuff; within an hour of my first post they thought it a good idea to post some sort of protest statement on the talk page of a VOA account I blocked. This is highly unbecoming and disruptive and I would like a second, third, etc. opinion. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 17:03, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes that is a disruptive edit and inappropriate. This is a newish user; per their edit count their account has been open less than 1 year and they have about 200 edits. Their filings at AN and then at COIN were... ineptly done - too much drama and not nearly enough evidence. The false accusations of OUTING confused things. When they finally came back and presented evidence it was again overly dramatic and weak, and was reacted to negatively. W's reactions to that went from kind of sarcasm here to explicit sarcasm that started to personalize this here; which was followed in time by the wierd edit Drmies brings above, followed by this which really does make it personal.

COI is hard to deal with and there are lots of ways to go wrong. W has gone wrong in almost all of them (no real evidence, too much emotion, too personalized, threatening to go the papers, some personal attack, and doing more of the same in reaction to the negative reactions they received, including the posting at Benjamin02's page that is the specific subject of this posting). That is not terrible if they were to handle it gracefully and learn. So let's see what happens.

Wasickta, do you see that you have handled this badly and that whatever you were doing at Benjamin02's was a bad thing? Please think carefully before responding. Jytdog (talk) 19:51, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I was upset and it was very irrational/incorrect thing to do. I have retracted the comment since. Wasickta (talk) 19:54, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Wasickta adding an apology to Drmies wouldn't hurt (Drmies is one of the best here, actually. Saucy which can be confusing, but on the money). But don't apologize if you don't mean it. Jytdog (talk) 20:25, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Drmies are you satisfied? Jytdog (talk) 20:25, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

As you pointed out, I'm only in it for the money, and a $100 bill (or "Benny") will go a long way. What I care about is that Wasickta knows this was out of line and won't do it again--and that Wasickta will ponder the COI accusations they made and the evidence they presented. I don't need an apology, I just want a more positive, productive colleague on Misplaced Pages. And a nap, which went totally by the wayside today. (BTW, that editor I blocked, the rev/deleted edits had nothing to do with anything here--just vandalism and someone saying disgusting things about a classmate or so.) Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:36, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Topic ban requested

At 28 april 2016, Robertinventor (signing as "Robert Walker") requested a citation in the lead of Four Noble Truths. Since then, eleven (!) citations have been given (note 2 in the lead); nevertheless, Robert Walker has filled Talk:Four Noble Truths with walls of texts "arguing" that the four truths are not about ending rebirth. It's a repetition of 2015. When pinged, Drmies adviced to bring this issue here, which Robert McClenon endorsed, so here we are: I'd like to propose a topic-ban for Robert Walker on Four Noble Truths, for WP:DISRUPTIVE by posting WP:WALLSOFTEXT and WP:DONTGETIT by ignoring the honouring of his request for citations. Pinging John Carter and User:Ms Sarah Welch, since they supported "to keep this editor just away from this page" (bottom of the list with differences). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:25, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support, as nominee. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:25, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose Please, admins, when evaluating this, note that
  1. When I do longer posts I collapse parts of them so readers can skip easily.
  2. Please don't judge the number of posts I do from the talk page edit history. I tend to repeat myself and make mistakes, typing quickly. Also not good at spotting those mistakes when the words first appear on the page. Most of the edits in the history are to do with fixing these issues. Please instead look at the talk page itself.
  3. I am not editing the page itself (except for one edit to add a citation needed tag some time back - when the tag was removed I never tried again). This action would silence my voice in debates on the talk page.
  
  All my posts are to the point, respectful and done with the intention of improving wikipedia.
  
  Please also note the context - this action was brought the day after I got a second Oppose vote in the RfC on use of redeath in the article. See RfC on use of the word "redeath" in the article and lede for Four Noble Truths. Also notice that yesterday he collapsed the entire section of supplementary material for my oppose vote, mid conversation. He hasn't explained why he did this.Robert Walker (talk) 07:32, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Comment - I was so kind not to mention WP:TENDENTIOUS, but the post above illustrates that point as well: I was about to close that RfC on "redeath" after I removed this word from the lead, and consolidated the refs & notes, in response to user RD64. Surprisingly, user RD64 concluded he preferred to keep the word, after having read my comments. So, I reinserted the term one time, and kept the RfC open. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:08, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm here and my username is AD64 not RD64. Thank you. AD64 (talk) 18:05, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

In that case also - I was the one who opened it, and you were going to close it as a result of the first comment response by a disinterested party in the RfC. I was asleep at the time and could have woken up to find my RfC closed already.

Please don't assume that I'm a "disinterested party". In fact, I'm very interested. The number of comments I've made has nothing to do with my level of interest. AD64 (talk) 19:22, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I want to hear the full spectrum of views on the matter. We haven't yet had any comments by experts in the early Buddhist texts. The RfC is not just to achieve a "yes / no answer"; it is to further understanding and help guide future edits of the article. I don't want to discuss the debate itself here, just user behaviour so won't go into intricacies of our discussion. Robert Walker (talk) 10:25, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, I didn't close it, did I, so what's the problem here? And I was about to remove all the uses of the word "redeath" in the lead, as you begged for - and you still find fault with it... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:12, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not aiming for a "win", but for understanding :). It is just luck that you didn't close it. And your behaviour on the article is erratic. First arguing strongly for this term, then you remove this term from the article, then add it back again a short while later, all based on responses of the first disinterested person to enter the debate on the first day of the RfC. I'd think we need to find out more on this topic for the article, hence the RfC. Robert Walker (talk) 11:22, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support, conditionally. Freedom to express is a precious thing. It is at the foundation of wikipedia policies and admin-triggered corrective measures. I hesitate on indef, complete topic ban on @Robert Walker. Yet, something ought to be done, given @Robert Walker has repeatedly violated WP:FORUM / WP:TPNO guideline on how to use article's talk page. He has posted hundreds of edits, with walls of post, within a few days on Talk:Four Noble Truths. The posts mostly keep recycling the same non-RS sourced stuff. This is not productive, it is counter-productive. Imagine a hotline for medical services or fire service, which receives 50 calls a day, 7 days a week from the same caller, repeating the same call, in different words, not stopping, despite no fire nor emergency. Such a caller will invite admin/disciplinary action. @Robert Walker has done the same, and continues. We can ignore the walls of post, just like a fire station can ignore all phone rings. But is that proper? The 4NT article has many watchers, is a high traffic article, and has the kind of participation from all sides that will likely keep the article in good shape. Further wikipedia is not a fire station, and there are no emergencies here. So here is what I propose: Limited ban: limit 3 edits per day for @Robert Walker on the talk page; or one month topic ban, or whatever keeps the larger interest of the project, but helps reduce or stop @Robert Walker's behavior, which is to ignore WP:RS and wikipedia's content policies, and keep repeating what is in the non-WP:RS sources. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:49, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Please see WP:RS and redeath for my comment on this idea that all WP:RS sources use this term. Harvey uses the word redeath once, and death 161 times in a 552 page book. The other WP:RS sources I list there never use it. Robert Walker (talk) 15:13, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• If Robert Walker would only be more sparing with words and combine edits...but then still, it's a complete overdose of posts, well past, in my opinion, the point of disruption. So yes, I support this narrow topic ban too. Drmies (talk) 15:43, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I have just edited those posts above to remove repetition, sorry for being wordy in my replies. I do work very very hard on this, to reduce the word count. Most of my edits in the edit history of the talk pages are to do with this. Robert Walker (talk) 16:17, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support Ms Sarah Welch's conditions as a compromise in the right direction, since the status quo is untenable. Miniapolis 22:21, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - Since I keep getting pinged about these Buddhist controversies, I will comment. The timing of this request is unfortunate, since the subject editor has now filed a real RFC, which is more constructive than his previous conduct in continuing to go on and one. However, looking over the recent history, he is still going on and on. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:21, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - The subject editor says that one of the reasons that he makes so many posts is that he has to go back and correct. I see that is true. At the same time, I see that he never marks those corrections as minor edits, but I also see that he never uses edit summaries. I understand that very lengthy posts may not be perfect on first entry, but I would suggest that he could try composing his lengthy posts in a text window, which would permit him to view and correct before committing. However, if I only make one suggestion, it is that he at least occasionally use edit summaries. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:21, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Okay. I am a somewhat infrequent poster to wikipedia talk pages, and for the few posts I usually do on minor matters, this is not an issue. I will collapse the rest of this comment for those who wish to skip it as for discusions on facebook etc.

Robert Walker (talk) 08:57, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose a long-term topic-ban. Oppose a one-month topic ban. Support a restriction on the number of posts per day, for which 3 has been suggested, which could provide him an incentive to compose his walls of text in a text window. It is unfortunate that he has made this necessary. Restrictions on talk page posting should not become a rule. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:21, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Comment - it's not only the length; at the first place it's about WP:DONTGETIT. Robertinventor asked for a reference ont he link between the four truths and rebirth (his one edit to the article); thereafter, altogether eleven references and an extensive explanation have been provided, and the "reference needed"-tag has righfully been removed; yet, he still goes on and on about this point. It's endless. The RfC on the use of the word "redeath" was a good move, but Robert has already announced future RfC's, including on the link between the four truths and rebirth, despite the fact that this point has been settled by reliable sources and approved by multiple editors with a good grip on the topic. What more does he want? Waiting 'till one editor pops-up who also wants to bypass those eleven sources? Does he want twenty sources? Thirty? Hundred? "Discussion" 'till we've all died from old age, and can't discuss anymore? Continued discussion in our next lifes? When does this end? And that's the whole point: Robert doesn't know when his questions have been answered and his requests and "discussions" become distracting, so I want us, the rest, to stop him. That's why I requested a topic-ban. A limit of three posts a day won't stop him from dragging on endless "discussions." And get me clear on this one: I don't doubt his good intentions, and we might get along quite well if we got to know each other personally (I love his photograph! It makes me smile with a broad grin). But he's driving me nuts here. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:06, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

This is the list of future RfCs. The editors that remain in this topic tend to be ones that are in general agreement with Joshua Jonathan as others get all their edits reversed and eventually give up contributing. See for instance @Dharmalion76: who was opposed to the use of the term redeath, who talks about the frequent bullying in the Buddhism project, and says it makes him want to walk away from the project, which I've also witnessed of other editors such as @Dorje108:, previous main editor of the Four Noble Truths until Joshua Jonathan took over with a massive rewrite in October 2014 (see how in this history page there is an abrupt transition between edits mainly by Dorje108 and edits mainly by Joshua Jonathan in October 2014 ). Joshua ignored Dorje's request to discuss - after that Dorje just left the project (after a long and unsuccessful attempt to deal with the issues by RfCs etc along with me).

Then there's ScientificQuest - a student with an MS in Electrical Engineering and Physics from University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, doing a MBS program from UC Berkeley, and an MA in Sanskrit, and a newbie wikipedia editor doing his first ever edits of the encyclopedia, who had every single contribution to the closely related Anatta article reverted by Joshua Jonathan on the basis that they were not based on WP:RS with JJ lecturing him on what counts as WP:RS in his area of expertise, saying that Bhikkhu Bodhi, president of the Buddhist Publication Society is not WP:RS. He answered politely , but eventually just gave up, with none of his contributions to the article accepted. I think this must happen to many more in this topic area. I have tried to attract the attention of experts in early Buddhist texts from elsewhere in Misplaced Pages for this redeath RfC, but so far with not much luck. Robert Walker (talk) 09:09, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I want to leave discussion of whether the third truth should be expressed as usually done as a path to cessation of suffering (as in the original wheel turning sutra), or as a path to end rebirth, to the RfC, and this doesn't seem to be the place to discuss details of our long debate on this. I just wanted to make this point, that I do understand that he is using WP:RS sources. But I think these sources do not demonstrate what he claims they do demonstrate and I think there is an element of WP:SYNTHESIS as well as relying on minority academic views. Details are for future discussion. Robert Walker (talk) 10:24, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Also to say that Joshua Jonathan often does 14 posts a day in these debates. So limiting me to 3 a day, even if I do that via drafts in my user space to reduce edits in the edit history would mean he would be able to do more than four posts to any discussion for every one of my posts. Robert Walker (talk) 11:02, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm a very new editor and still learning the ropes here. I don't know all the history, etc. What I do know is that my own attempts to participate in my first RfC on a topic about which I have some basic knowledge (so I could focus on learning the way things are done at Misplaced Pages more than worry about if I understand the content) got very sidetracked by all of this. I felt like a participant and was following along, until the moment when Joshua Jonathan proposed closing the RfC early. I stepped back once all this began. My suggestion, for this current RfC, is that we figure out how to make space for other editors to offer comments (this could be via some of the bans mentioned above; there could be other ways that I don't know about). Both Joshua Jonathan and Robert Walker have the best of intentions and I appreciate how much they care about this article, but it may have gone too far. The discussions, and the WAY it's being discussed, have created an atmosphere where this new editor just backed up and went to work on other Buddhist articles on the margins. I now have this feeling that the more mainstream articles, even when they need editing, and even when I have knowledge to contribute, and editing skills, are somehow off limits unless I am willing to get in the middle of something like this. This doesn't feel encouraging to this new editor, nor does it contribute to the culture of Misplaced Pages in a useful way. And for all this conversation, I think the article is still lower quality than it could be. I hope my comments are useful to the process and to getting a better version of the Four Noble Truths article published. Best, AD64 (talk) 18:25, 6 May 2016 (UTC)AD64

p.s. Please don't just assume that I am a he without asking first.

p.p.s., as I understand it, it's polite to ping a user when they are being mentioned. I see that I was referenced in this discussion without being pinged. To discover this conversation in another way without being pinged isn't good form. Please be more careful about this going forward. I've been quiet, but I'm reading, watching, learning, and waiting. I'm here. Thank you. AD64 (talk) 19:35, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

@AD64: First, sorry to hear about this, I wanted the RfC to be welcoming to anyone who wants to participate! The RfC started on 16:44, 3 May 2016 , and by the same time the following day, it had 18 responses in the discussion threads or other edits by Joshua Jonathan and probably an equal number by me (mine are hard to count because of all the editing) as well as a few by other editors. So that would be probably more than 36 new posts to read in a 24 hour period which is overwhelming for anyone. It does seem a significant issue, I agree.

I wonder, maybe we need an overall limit, not just to me, but to all participants in the debates, to, say, at most than three posts per RfC per day could help here? I'm willing to do that myself for sure. But it would be hard to stay silent if I come back to see a lot of posts by Joshua Jonathan putting forward his arguments and seeing responses in the RfC swayed by his remarks when I think that the opposite case has not been made to them. But if we both had the same limit of three posts, we'd have to choose our words carefully and it would be more equitable. Just a thought. Robert Walker (talk) 19:24, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Another thought - how about each of the original participants in the discussion that lead to the RfC has one section to present their own arguments in the RfC? Then they step back, voluntarily, for the first few days of the RfC, to let the newbies to the article vote and discuss the topic, just don't enter the discussion at all, so they can discuss the ideas from scratch. Not permitted even to edit your own section of the RfC in response to what the RfC newbies say.

Then can enter the discussion, say after day 7 when the newbies have had time to discuss it if they want to? Something like that, could set down the rules in the statement of the RfC. Again just a thought. We could restart the RfC on redeath using these rules perhaps. Just mark the existing one as closed, start a copy, myself, and Joshua Jonathan present our case in separate sections below it as supplementary material, and then just wait and see what anyone says. And neither I nor JJ can comment on their responses for 7 days. There is no hurry about any of this. Robert Walker (talk) 19:37, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

@AD64: Also, sorry for mentioning your name without pinging you. And sorry for calling you "disinterested" as that was a bad choice of words. What I meant was someone who hasn't been involved in all the previous debates on the topic, so comes to it new. It was the wrong word for that Robert Walker (talk) 19:43, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the acknowledgement, @Robertinventor and Robert Walker:. That helps. I like the idea that you are proposing here for a variety of reasons. A fresh start with clear rules. Yet, I don't want to lose track of relevant material that was brought in in the current RfC. Maybe a neutral third party (not me, please), could summarize the major topics that have arisen in the RfC (not arguments, topics), and have those available in a summary form for us to review, etc. In order for us to get to consensus, I would suggest that brevity is helpful (at least for now, it creates space for others to respond), kindness, and civility. Using Edit Summary boxes are important too (as I'm learning as a new editor). I don't mind disagreeing; I do mind the lack of good will as we disagree. Best, AD64 (talk) 19:47, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

@AD64: I think the idea of a list of topics, rather than arguments for or against, is a great way to do a new beginning, if we close it and start again. I think it will be hard to find a neutral editor to do this, but can make a stab at it myself. I've prepared a draft of a list here: Talk:Four_Noble_Truths#List_of_topics_for_the_redeath_RfC List of topics for the redeath RfC. Thanks :). Robert Walker (talk) 12:04, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Robert, are you seriously proposing that I should be limited to three responses a day because you can't limit yourself and WP:DONTGETIT? You requested a citation, you got 10+ of them, and look what an endless list of comments you're posting now here too. If it wasn't for your endless laments and noncomprehension, my number of edits would have been dramatically lower. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:06, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm suggesting we both limit ourselves to help newbies to the RfC. Rather than a limit to 3 posts a day, it might be easier to just step back and not comment on the RfC at all for seven days, then we don't need to worry about whether the other person has done a response that we should respond to. So that was the reason for the second suggestion. To encourage new viewpoints on the discussion. Just a thought. Robert Walker (talk) 20:10, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

If you want to change Wiki-policies, start a proposal at the relevant policy talkpage. But please, stop sharing your endless stream of thoughts. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:13, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

@Bishonen, Doug Weller, Bbb23, Nyttend, Liz, Floquenbeam, and HighInBC: could you please weight in here (sorry, pinging the admins I'm in touch with most, plus the ones at "Admins disagreeing on unblock")? Take a scroll through Talk:Four Noble Truths, and tell me if you can follow what's going on there. Let someone please stop this nightmare! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:11, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from Four Noble Truths and its talkpage. Overwhelming and owning the talkpage by force of wordiness is untenable. I want to emphasize that I take Robert Walker to be a good faith editor, but everybody here is a volunteer and he's making unreasonable demands on other editors' time and energy. I'll support any of the narrow topic bans suggested above, including the 3 edit a day limit, the one month ban, and also actually a longer ban, such as 3 months — whatever people can agree on. It's obvious that something must be done. Also, Robert, you say above that you have edited your own posts to remove repetition, both here and on the article talkpage. "Most of my edits in the edit history of the talk pages are to do with this." Well, please stop doing that. It's a bad idea to change your posts after they have been answered, as this wrongfoots the people who have answered. See WP:REDACT. I understand you do it to try to oblige the users who complain of your long posts, but that's not the way. Please make more of an effort to write concisely and coherently before you click save. PS, I have removed the header "Comment" and formatted it like the other comments. There are many comments here, and making a header for one of them makes it harder for others to know where to post, as it implies that anything below yours is a comment on your comment. I hope you don't mind, AD64. Bishonen | talk 18:01, 7 May 2016 (UTC).

Thank you, Bishonen, the removal of the header and reformatting is fine; it is accurate, appropriate, and helpful. Best, AD64 (talk) 18:29, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

I put a request on the article talk page asking that there be no new edits on the article until this is all sorted out. Is this an appropriate request? Could this be done as well? Thank you for weighing in here. Best, AD64 (talk) 18:29, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

@AD64: I have already answered that question at the talkpage, but I'll repeat it here: ":I understand your request, but Robert's conversations never end. It would mean that WP:FILIBUSTER is effectively rewarded, and allowed to paralyze the editorial process. That is not how Misplaced Pages works." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:36, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for responding here too Joshua Jonathan. That's very helpful. It's just almost impossible to keep up with your editing speed, and the talk page, and this admin page. In addition, right now there is no breathing room to consider the edits you are making and then discuss them. My preference is that all edits would be discussed beforehand especially given what is happening. So along with all the long conversations about previous things, now there is a whole new list of things to discuss as the editing goes on and on. I feel that is this not in the spirit of collaboration, nor in in the spirit of working this all out. New edits, without space for collaborative editor discussion, just creates more of a quagmire. I appreciate your intentions and your efforts on all this. Please, would you consider taking an editing break from this article for a bit, so we can sort this all out? With regards and thanks and best wishes, AD64 (talk) 19:49, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. I am trying another approach to reducing my impact on the talk page.

First I understand the issue of many edits. As I said nobody had complained about it this time around before this ANC, so I was focusing on reducing the lengths of posts. Since this ANC started I am now doing both. I'm reducing numbers of edits. I'm also marking minor edits as such. (I sometimes forget, it's a bit hard to remember to do an edit summary when you come to wikipedia from other places like quora or facebook that don't have this requirement).

And I am also trying something new. I go on wikipedia for just a short time in the morning, type my posts, and then I log out of wikipedia, so I can visit it during research for my work and other conversations without notification. I then log back in in the evening and do a few more posts then log out. This is something I did before and it works, just forgot about it.

Do note that this ANI was brought suddenly, when we were in the middle of an RfC, with no warning immediately before. And no attempt has been made at all to help me, no suggestions about how I could reduce impact on the talk page, no encouragement on all the work I did to reduce the word count of my posts. Just a littany of wikipedia tags such as WP:DONTGETIT, WP:GREENCHEESE, WP:FILLIBUSTER, etc etc about my posts on the talk page. @Joshua Jonathan: also keeps saying he thinks I'm a nice chap - I don't care whether other people think I'm nice or not. I just want to be treated with respect and consideration. Please help me to become a better wikipedian, not just fight me every step of the way as I try to learn how to behave better on wikipedia talk pages. Thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 20:25, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Random line break for convenience

• Narrow oppose. WP:3RR counts a series of edits as one edit for determining the number of reversions, A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert. Couldn't we use the same standard here? There's no reason to object that someone takes four or eight edits to write a statement, rather than one; policy doesn't prohibit editing your own new comments at talk pages (nobody's responded to your new comment, so it won't cause confusion), and unlike extra trivial edits by bots, a few extra edits by a human user won't clog up RecentChanges or cause problems with server performance. And the "wall of text" problem, to a significant extent, is caused by Robert's excessive use of line breaks; if those lines were all together in one or two paragraphs, they'd be a bit less daunting. Look at these two chunks of text, the first copied straight from the talk page, and the second with line breaks removed:

• No opinion on other issues; I'm not familiar enough with the situation to offer an informed opinion. If the ban-or-don't-ban hinges on other issues, the closing admin should ignore my opinion. Nyttend (talk) 00:01, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support Either topic ban or some sort of gagging. Wall'o'text where nothing is actually useful is a form of disruptive editing as it prevents meaningful discussion and collaboration. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:42, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
• Additional Comment: @Robert Walker has been inserting sentences and changing his old posts after someone has responded. See this version I responded to, and compare it to the current version. He did this back editing after May 7, after being requested to review WP:Talk on May 2. Such back editing conduct by @Robert Walker has deprived the replies their original context, and made the article's talk page even more difficult to understand. If such misconduct continues, there is no sense in replying to anything. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:39, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose although I acknowledge I generally feel very bad in disagreeing with Joshua, who tends to know these things better than I do. I also note that I have generally agreed with those who disagree with Robert. But, so far as I can tell, there seems to be a bit of a tendency on the part of others to examine only some of the most recent reference sources regarding this topic to determine usage of a term, and I see some possible problems with WP:JARGON and WP:TECHNICAL in this regard. "Rebirth" is a term fairly widely used and understandable to most, "redeath" is less so. The fact that there seems to at least my eyes to be little if any interest in discussion beyond "will we use the term or not," and no apparent effort to possibly even consider other options, makes this proposal, at least to my eyes, maybe a bit premature.John Carter (talk) 15:00, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Comment - this request is about the endless posts of Robert in general, not the use of the word "redeath." But the fact that this side-issue has become a main-issue, while I'd already removed that word from the lead, is symptomatic. The Real issue is that Robert Never stops, as is show by his opposition against explaining that the four truths are about the cor of Buddhism, namely ending rebirth. What term we use is a side-issue. Basic fact is that 11 reliable sources have been provider, and that he still intends to open a RfC on this. That's not about gaining concessies, that's about bypassing concencus. And that's what I'm fed-up with: the lack of basic knowledge, the lack of use of relevant sources, the lack of understanding proper arguments, and yet the totale conviction that his personal understanding of Buddhism is the standard in this regard. That's why I asked for a topic-ban, not for a side-issue on the use of the word "redeath." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:24, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Struck my opposition based on the response immediately above. I do agree that Robert has rather regularly displayed what might charitably be called a weak grasp of conduct guidelines. WP:MENTOR might help, and possibly be acceptable, if he were to agree to it. I don't know if that has been proposed and/or rejected before however. If such measures have been discussed before, or, possibly, if it is thought that maybe some lesser sanction, like maybe WP:1RR or a topic ban or similar, might have a reasonable chance of success, I guess I would offer weak to moderate support of the proposed sanction. John Carter (talk) 19:30, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

@John Carter:The only edit I've done of this article is to insert a citations needed tag to the statement ""the truths of the Noble Ones," which express the basic orientation of Buddhism: this worldly existence is fundamentally unsatisfactory, but there is a path to liberation from repeated worldly existence." @Joshua Jonathan: removed it 21 minutes later. I have not tried to reinsert it. I don't do edit warring. Robert Walker (talk)

I didn't say you did. You do, however, have a very obvious history of making extremely long, and sometimes dubiously useful, comments on the talk pages, and have done so again here as well. John Carter (talk) 22:40, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I was referring to your suggestion of WP:1RR which is used aa a remedy for edit warring, wanted to make clear that I don't edit war. I didn't even try to reinsert a citations needed tag which was removed without discussion. Robert Walker (talk) 22:57, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Standard offer for Technophant

• Technophant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki)

The above user has requested the standard offer, which was declined last time. It's been over a year since they've edited outside of userspace - is it time for a second chance? SQL 23:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support. It is time for a second chance. QuackGuru (talk) 23:07, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support I agree that it's time. Miniapolis 01:02, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support I have no problem with them coming back under the standard offer. I would like clarification on if they are under any current topic or interaction bans though. It is my assumption that these would stay in place, if still in effect. HighInBC 15:09, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

• The concerns mentioned by Dennis are valid. While I would prefer these be addressed I am not going to withdraw my support at this time. HighInBC 14:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
• Note See below in the Relisted section for my updated opinion. HighInBC 17:13, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

• But HighInBC, it was closed merely for lack of activity, with the possibility of reopening when Technophant was able to participate, and that's now the case. Why should that be relevant? You don't provide new information when you're merely resuming a discussion. Nyttend (talk) 14:39, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

• This does not change the fact that they have still not responded to concerns brought up weeks ago. Even now they are back they have not addressed those concerns. We are not looking for new information, we are still looking for information asked for last month. Dennis brought up some good points and I have been swayed by them combined with the failure to address those points by Techno. HighInBC 14:45, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support - Sure, last appeal was in August 2015, and resulted in no consensus: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive274#Standard Offer unblock request for Technophant (restored); I've alwayd been a proponent of second chances and rehabilitation, and I certainly think Technophant has been blocked for a long enough time to justify giving them another shot. As for active sanctions that HighInBC asked about: Technophant is still indefinitely topic banned from all edits related to Alternative medicine, and specifically Acupuncture (see WP:EDR for details and links to discussions). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:15, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

It would be nice to actually hear the subject address points 2 and 3 of standard offer. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:39, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

• ?????? I don't actually see any explanation of how they expect to move forward, after bypassing the block last time by editing as an IP. To their credit, they admitted the socking, however, supporting the removal of an indef block requires a bit more explanation by the person requesting the deed. Two short paragraphs would be sufficient. Last time, I had serious doubts about how forthright they were being. Today, I have nothing to judge by. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:42, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

From the conversation over the last time we discussed unblocking Technophant I wrote:

I am therefore of a mind, that if Technophant's block is lifted, to impose a six month ISIL ban under the SCW and ISIL general sanctions, to see if Technophant has learnt anything from this block, by allowing Technophant to edit in other project areas of Wikiepdia where he is not so emotionally involved with the subject, or other editors.

If anyone thinks that this is a bad idea please read my comments in full from the last unblocking discussion and explain to me where Technophant has explained how he now realises that his editor interaction had become antisocial and that socking was only the final straw that broke the camel's back. -- PBS (talk) 20:00, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

@user:HighInBC User:Salvidrim "long enough time to justify giving them another shot" the time is not the issue. The issue is does Technophant understand all the reasons that he was blocked? Where during this whole saga (from the initial topic ban up until this unblock request do you think he has given any explanation of how he will modify his behaviour in future? (a couple of diffs would be nice).

@User:Salvidrim as Technophant transferred his antisocial behaviour from the initial ban topic to other topic areas, why keep any ban on him if he is a reformed? If he is not reformed then why let him edit at all? BTW under what user:name was he topic banned? -- PBS (talk) 20:00, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I think you quoted the wrong person, I didn't say that. HighInBC 20:20, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry my mistake I should have addressed it to User:Salvidrim -- PBS (talk) 10:19, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Support Technoplant has already stated (in his Sept 2015) request I broke my promise I made to User:Adjwilley to permanently refrain from using IP edits and paid dearly for my mistake. I'm willing to put any and all past differences behind me and move forward in a constructive fashion Several comments I made above were very much out of character from my normal professional demeanor. I was going through a time of enormous personal stress at the time however I have recently gone through a great deal of personal growth, psychotherapy, and medication changes and now feel that I am ready to go "back to work" editing in my usual gnomish/elfish fashion., and three components of WP:STANDARDOFFER do not include groveling. (See WP:Editors have pride). Unblock the editor, and if their behavior (as opposed to rhetoric) indicates a problem, block 'em again.NE Ent 21:31, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support with PBS (talk · contribs)'s 6-month topic ban suggestion.--v/r - TP 00:44, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
• Not Yet, per User:Dennis Brown. I'd be inclined to support unless their response to the comments are completely off the wall, but I'd like to hear more from the user to be sure. Lankiveil 06:55, 16 April 2016 (UTC).
• Oppose per Dennis Brown. I have serious doubts and suggest if we err, that it's on the side of caution. The socking is too recent and the promises to finally behave are easy to make, hard to keep. Jusdafax 08:14, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

The last socking from this user was in November of 2014. To be fair - that's the 'last socking that we know of', per the user in question. It is difficult to trust someone who's already socked in the past. SQL 09:32, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support We should show forgiveness when a banned editor has shown that they want to move on from their previous behavior. If recidivism is an issue, blocks are cheap. The Wordsmith 20:31, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• "Blocks are cheap" is a hoary Misplaced Pages cliche, but it's not actually true. When an editor goes off the rails, it often takes considerable time and effort from the community to convince an admin that a block is needed. That's time and effort which could be used to improve the encyclopedia, so it does have a definite cost. BMK (talk) 03:02, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

• There are 500 cheap blocks for every one that takes more than a 10 paragraph discussion on ANI.--v/r - TP 03:11, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

• Probably so, if you're talking about run-of-the-mill blocks among the general editing population, but we're talking here about blocks based on noticeboard discussions, and that is a different animal entirely, where the ratio -- if not actually reversed -- would most probably be much, much lower. On blocks (or actually unblocks, since it's the unblock discussion which makes up the cost) which are discussed on noticeboard, you're always guaranteed to have a percentage of comments pushing WP:ROPE, WP:AGF, or other supposedly mitigating factors, and it takes time to overcome these and build up a consensus.In any event, I'm simply pointing out that "Blocks are cheap" is a cliche, and not a reasoned argument. BMK (talk) 23:07, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. At least until Technophant provides a better unblock request than what we have now. I asked him to amend his bare-bones request for unblocking here, but apart from attributing his block to administrator incompetence, he has thus far fallen short of actually providing a satisfactory request. I should note that while his block, as recorded in the block log, was for sockpuppetry, his behavior since then is the main reason for why he is still blocked to this day. He has thus far steadfastly refused to address anything other than the sockpuppetry. I don't think it's too much to ask for some recognition that his behavior was unacceptable.--Atlan (talk) 15:47, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

touch (so the discussion is not archived just yet) -- PBS (talk) 22:31, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Unless @Technophant: responds on his/her talkpage within the next 24 hours, I would recommend closing this discussion until they have time to participate. SQL 21:48, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Oppose for now Per Atlan's commentary, I want to see a WP:GAB compliant unblock request that takes responsibility for their being blocked and how they intend to prevent this in the future. Hasteur (talk) 12:09, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Relisted

I have relisted this thread from the archive, per Technophant's request. He has returned and is willing to address concerns raised in this thread.--Atlan (talk) 07:27, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Something seems not right. User requested unblock on 29 March and then promptly disappeared from 3 April to 6 May, seemingly only to return when the unblock request was fianlly declined. Anyway I will advise the user to make a statement which can then be copied here. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:10, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree. As far as I am concerned their previous request failed did not succeed due to their lack of participation and this is another request. I have amended my opinion accordingly. There have been some very reasonable concerns raised here and Techno has not addressed them. HighInBC 17:45, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

• @Technophant:, what is going to be different this time? What do you think you were blocked for? In the absence of any good evidence of learning or change, I would default to maintaining the block. Reblocks are not necessarily cheap, as they require time, discussion, and energy. Although I give my time here free of charge, that does not mean I think it is worthless. --John (talk) 18:08, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
• Leaning towards oppose - even after asking to have this conversation reopened, the comments indicate that Technophant wants to use a different venue to discuss this (UTRS)?? — xaosflux 19:55, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

• There's nothing wrong with asking to have it reopened; immediately before dearchival, the closer (unsigned) gave a rationale of As Technophant hasn't responded to any of us - I can only assume that he/she is too busy, or cannot access Misplaced Pages to do so at this time. I'm closing this without prejudice, until such time that the user has sufficient time to participate in the process. This isn't a situation in which there's consensus against unblock, and requesting reopening is a demonstration that Technophant is ready/able to participate in the process. I have no yes or no opinion, but this issue ought not be addressed differently from a month ago. Nyttend (talk) 02:15, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

• I forgot to sign - thanks for the reminder. SQL 03:51, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

• My concern is the lack of response to the concerns raised in this thread. If they were away that is fine, but now they are back and have still not responded. The closer was very generous to close without prejudice, and I accept that closure without prejudice. The fact remains that they are not responding to concerns raised here. In summary we are not addressing this issue differently than a month ago, the same questions are still outstanding. HighInBC 14:48, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree, High. Technophant seems to feel that 18 months of being blocked is in itself enough to entitle them to a free pass. The lack of response tells me there is No willingness to face the community squarely. Jusdafax 06:32, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - This IS a separate request, so feel free to ping previous participants, but the circumstances have changed and it would be wrong to count their votes now. My opinion is that only votes below RELISTED matter. I could write a few paragraphs but it is pointless. In the end, I see the risk as too high at this time, and the potential benefit as too meager to go down this road. Our first responsibility is to the encyclopedia as a whole, not any single person who has shown to be problematic and irresponsible without taking the time to explain why that has all changed. We don't have time for more drama. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:02, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose for now Technophant has not addressed the concerns here. They come back and ask for this to be restored but I cannot see any new information provided. This is convincing me that the arguments made below by Dennis and others need to be addressed first. HighInBC 17:42, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - per Dennis and High. Jusdafax 05:21, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose based on their statement their socking wasn't recent because they were blocked in 2014, I asked for confirmation that this meant they hadn't socked since they were blocked. Instead of either a simple confirmation they hadn't or a simple (or detailed) explaination of their socking history after being blocked, I got a long rant with little relevance to what I said about how I wasn't AGF etc even though as I pointed out if I wasn't willing to AGF they would tell the truth, it's unlikely I would have asked. There was some comment about single IP edit, and a suggestion they hadn't created accounts, which sort of implies there was only a single socking edit since blocked, but not what I consider a clear cut statement confirming this. So given their response to a simple and IMO resonable question to an unblock request, I must oppose at the current time. Nil Einne (talk) 08:34, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Article splitting - whose responsibility is it to fix incoming links?

When an article is split resulting in two articles whose responsibility is it to fix the incoming links? The issue is fully explained at at Talk:World_Open_(snooker)#RfC:_Proposal_to_split_World_Grand_Prix_results_to_World_Grand_Prix_.28snooker.29.3F. Some of the events at World Open (snooker) have been split out to a new article, meaning that the World Open entry in the player performance tables needs to be converted to two entries. The result of the split is that many of the links are now broken, but the editor who undertook the split is refusing to do the cleanup job claiming it is an "absolutely another problem". While the article obviously needed to be split at some point I think the other editor did have a duty of care here i.e. the other article could have been set up, the links then should have been fixed and then the content content could have been deleted from the existing article. WP:CORRECTSPLIT seems to indicate that checking the link integrity is part of the process. Is the editor who undertook the split permitted to refuse to do any of the cleanup? Betty Logan (talk) 15:21, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

You do remember we're all fucking volunteers, right? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:42, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I only fuck paid editors. TimothyJosephWood 15:46, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes I do recall that. But if I volunteer at an old folks home and take them on a day trip to the seaside do I have an obligation to bring them home? Or am I justified in just leaving them there and telling them all I'm only a "fucking volunteer"? Betty Logan (talk) 16:03, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

As BD2412 points out below, the ability to revert to the status quo ante changes the moral calculus here. If the editor won't clear up the mess then you're entitled to revert to the pre-mess situation. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:15, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Please don't conflate "editing an online encyclopedia" and "life-endangering criminal negligence". You're more intelligent than that. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:32, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

• Even if the split is needed, if it makes a mess that no one wants to clean up (including the editor who split the articles), then I would revert and wait until someone comes along who can do the split properly (i.e., including cleanup). bd2412 T 15:57, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Hear, hear! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:25, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree. This is why I prefer to recruit a couple of friends ahead of time. Often I will forget something, and one of them will remember as well. As long as it is cleaned up within a day, that is fine. Projects are a good place to recruit help, as is the article talk page. Many hands make for light work. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:55, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Standard offer request for Mdrnpndr

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

Mdrnpndr (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)

• I am handling an unblock request and this user wishes to request the standard offer. I am deferring this to the community to decide. The message below was originally posted on their talk page and reposted here by me. At this point I am going to withhold my opinion, but I may express it later. HighInBC 16:51, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I have waited 6 months since I was originally blocked to make this standard offer request to give myself sufficient time to come to terms with the situation. I think that insufficient time away from Misplaced Pages may have been a factor in my previous relapses into edit warring. As for the matter at hand, I agree with the original declining administrator that my efforts in terms of dispute resolution and discussion in general were quite weak. If unblocked, my number one priority will be consensus building. I will focus a tremendous amount of effort on reaching out to all community members whom I have editing disputes with, even if their opinions are radically different from mine. I will not avoid discussion and will make sure that my voice is heard in accordance with Misplaced Pages policy, but I will respect community consensus once it exists. In either case, edit warring is a definite no-go zone, period.

I would now like to address some issues that an administrator brought up on my talk page. First of all, I am not under any sanctions other than the block itself. Second, I admit that my previous unblock (which, it stands to mention, happened about two years ago now) was as a second chance, but it was for a very specific issue that was only indirectly connected to my edit warring behaviour. More importantly, I followed through on the terms of my unblock that time, as I have taken great care since then to respect the desires of other users with regard to their talk pages. I plan to do the same here for edit warring in general, by respecting the desires of the community in regard to articles and similar pages. Finally, I would like to point out that, even though I have been indefinitely blocked before, I had never made a standard offer request until now. Mdrnpndr (talk) 16:00, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

So I'm the blocking admin, but I have no opinion, because I don't remember the situation (or your username, for that matter) even one bit. Just saying this lest people wonder what I think about the situation. For future reference, the most recent block entry had a rationale of Persistent tendentious editing; https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?diff=681944624. Nyttend (talk) 18:31, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

In hindsight I should have pinged you. I will remember next time. HighInBC 02:15, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

No problem. I only learnt this by accident: since "I have been indefinitely blocked before", I was curious to see the block log, so I went to it and was surprised to see my own username as the blocking admin. Nyttend (talk) 14:26, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, this is the thread/situation that resulted in the indef block. -- The Voidwalker 23:17, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I'm not expressing my opinion on whether this user should be unblocked, but if the user is unblocked, I strongly suggest placing a WP:1RR restriction on them for a period of time, with a swift return to an indefinite block if it is broken. I'm not opposed to giving another chance to someone with a long history of blocks for edit-warring, but only if such a restriction prevents wasted editor time down the road in the event that edit-warring persists. ~ Rob 02:25, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

• Note: Mdrnpndr has made a response here: . HighInBC 16:33, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support conditional on an indefinite 1RR restriction that can be appealed here after six months. Katie 17:28, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support unblock based on 1RR acceptance. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:10, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support subject to 1RR. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:05, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
• After thinking about this a while I have decided to support subject to 1RR. HighInBC 15:35, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
• Conditional Support support with the following caveats: (1) 1RR restriction; (2) General civility restriction ; restrictions to be indefinite but available for appeal here at WP:AN after 6 months. — xaosflux 01:07, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Wiktionary should be changed

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

One of the most irritating thing about using Wiktionary as a multilingual dictionary, which is one of its purposes, is its capitalization of German nouns. Capitalization is a style issue and should not affect sorting in a dictionary, yet they insist on having a separate page for each German noun with the capital. I don't like case-sensitivity in the first place, but that is absurd. You get entries for a common borrowing in every other language on one page, then the German one on another. If you're searching for a German noun, you are sent to the wrong page if there happens to be a word of that spelling in any other language. I don't know who decided this but it's ludicrous.

I can't post this at Wiktionary (not that there's anyone listening there) because I am blocked there, by a guy that obviously has it in for me. All I did is write 'cunt' in the sandbox, which I referenced in this edit summary which someone was confused by whoever gave me a warning for it.

Please clean up Wiktionary. 24.131.136.147 (talk) 10:13, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

This is English Misplaced Pages, not Wiktionary - we have no jurisdiction over the other sites in the Wikimedia project. There is nothing we can do for you. ansh666 11:07, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Need help cleaning up page moves

Hogie75 (talk · contribs) made hundreds of undiscussed page moves earlier today. They include moving pages like December 17–22, 2012 North American blizzard to 2012 December 17–22 North American blizzard without an explanation. I've moved maybe a dozen or so back so far, but I don't have the time to correct all of them. I'm not looking to have the user sanctioned, but the moves should be undone. Calidium ¤ 16:31, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank You I do understand the reason for this as I should have brought it up for discussion as I am noticing, however I was noticing several other articles prior to moving the articles for my reasoning of doing what I did including 2016 Fort McMurray wildfire and 2011 Slave Lake wildfire, and 1991 Halloween blizzard several of which I had no contributions towards. The purpose of which would make Category:Blizzards_in_the_United_States organized and user friendly to view, and give some reason to naming in general which is quite confusing as per several discussions on Talk:Winter_storm_naming_in_the_United_States. I would gladly go back and revert my edits if deemed inappropriate. Again, the redirects were still in place. Thank you.16:47, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Hogie75, there are guidelines like Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (events)#Tornado and tornado outbreaks, Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Severe weather/Tornado and Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Style which you should have consulted before making dozens and dozens of page moves. I suggest reviewing each move, bringing the discussion to Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones, Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Severe weather and other relevant talk pages in order to see if your style of naming is in line with standard practices. In general, if there is a stylistic debate that is unresolved, it is unwise to choose to bring order to what you see as confusion by substituting your own opinion for consensus.

I should say that I did this exact same thing years ago when I saw the use of U.S. in some titles while in others, United States is used. Luckily, I only did a few page moves before a more experienced editor brought my mistake to my attention and I reverted those changes. It's a mistake to assume that a subject that is inconsistent hasn't already been the subject of discussion and the differences might exist because there isn't a clear consensus yet. Liz 17:15, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

And because I haven't used enough initials, see WP:TITLECHANGES, specifically, "If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed. Consensus among editors determines if there does exist a good reason to change the title. If it has never been stable, or it has been unstable for a long time, and no consensus can be reached on what the title should be, default to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub" Liz 17:22, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok well I will ensure my edits are all reverted, again sorry everyone for the confusion, I never thought it would be this big a deal. I will refrain from any further edits.18:47, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I just moved back about 4 articles that were involved in this mess, so you can thank me for that, however the 2006-07 Colorado blizzards one I cannot move, so I appreciate if an admin can move that one. --MarioProtIV (talk) 19:51, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Happy to help, if you could just link to the page in question. The one above is a red link. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:45, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Important close needed

I know it's a bit out-of-process to post here instead of letting the request languish at WP:AN/RFC, but Misplaced Pages:User pages/RfC for stale drafts policy restructuring and Misplaced Pages talk:User pages#Should old user space drafts have an expiration date? very much needs a careful, nuanced closure.

The debate over the handling of userspace drafts has been going strong for about 5-6 months now, with multiple appearances at ANI among other forums. Several editors have expressed the belief that if comprehensive RfCs are unable to resolve the issue, it will likely end up at ArbCom. Accordingly, the RfCs are in desperate need of a careful, nuanced close to put an end to the issue. A full reading or two of the RfCs are definitely needed before closure, since the commenters often interpret the questions (many of which are redundant or overlapping) in different ways. It's a real mess, and the RfCs could have been formulated better, but I believe we have the comments we need for a skillful closer to disentangle it and properly assess consensus. I hope someone here can step up to the plate. A2soup (talk) 23:30, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I was looking at that yesterday, thinking it needed to be closed but also that it might need a couple of us to do it. I'd be willing to help close it. Katie 02:21, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree this should be closed by more than 1 admin, 3 admins is a number that sounds good to me. However since I participated I must recuse myself. HighInBC 03:06, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't really have a strong opinion on this one way or the other, so I can help with the close. Would one more person be willing to volunteer as well? Seraphimblade 14:53, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I can be the third one if it is OK that I am on European time. Otherwise, I would be happy to give this place to an admin from the Western hemisphere.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:56, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Certainly won't be a problem for me, so unless that's a dealbreaker for KrakatoaKatie, I think we'll figure on us as the closers. I'll send both of you an email and we can start a planning thread to tackle this thing. Seraphimblade 17:20, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Editor apparently not here to contribute constructively

It's come to my attention that there is an editor who is apparently not here to contribute constructively to the project. So far, no real damage has been done, but there are clear indications that the account has not been created for constructive editing. I'd prefer that this issue could be discussed here without the editor in question (and any possible related usernames) being informed. Can we invoke WP:IAR in this case? Mjroots (talk) 08:12, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• No. We arnt ARBCOM, we dont disappear people without notifying them first. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:21, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
• We only block users if one of the following is the case:
  1. The user was warned that their action is going to lead to a block, and the user continues it.
  2. The user is registered under a highly inappropriate name.
  3. The user is causing significant, high-speed damage.
  4. The user appears to be a sockpuppet.

עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:44, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• • The reason I ask is because I've got a feeling that there is more to the situation than is evident at first sight. This may include sockpuppetry, but I'm not sure. It may be germane to state that the editor in question doesn't want any admins to communicate with them either, which is not to say that we can't get a friendly Burocrat to drop any messages necessary as there is no message for them to keep off their user space. I wasn't looking for an immediate block in any case. Should I see evidence that a block is necessary, I can block the editor in question myself. Mjroots (talk) 18:23, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Concerns about Ymblanter

Please take a moment to investigate the matter concerning the said editor/admin who "privatized" the page with his outright slanderous resentment full of discriminatory attitude and all sorts of unabashed bigotry towards anything that is Soviet or Russian by maliciously labeling anything that depicts remembering and commemorating the millions of fallen Soviet liberators of World Word II via the display of the ribbon in question with heavily biased and nothing short of libelous terms that purposefully denigrates and obliterates its significance - all in a sheer attempt to sway the unsuspecting reader into receiving deliberate misinformation on the matter by obliterating the real purpose of the ribbon. His sole intent is to tarnish and mar the facts by substituting them with quotes from bogus articles, invented qualifiers (aka Kremlin Regime), as well as openly pro-Nazi sympathies that he clearly personally harbors and promotes. People in 39 countries marched in May of 2016 and wore the ribbon to commemorate the fallen Soviet soldiers who liberated Europe. These millions of people worldwide could care less about "Kremlin Regime" or any other nonsense of the like. It's a shame that such activity gets carte blanche in a totally blindsided fashion on Misplaced Pages. (I'm the 99.135... editor who's done 2 edits on the page: at the end of 7th and at the beginning of the 8th of May.) Your assistance in the matter is much appreciated. 99.135.170.109 (talk) 16:59, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Please provide evidence in the form of diffs for these accusations. Ymblanter has been notified by me as required. HighInBC 17:07, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Please look at his edits on the page, most notably in early May. This is in regards to Ymblanter's malicious editing on Ribbon_of_Saint_George page, his persistent violation of NPOV by replacing the content with pro-Nazi sentiments, his flagrant abuse of administrative privileges. I'm sorry but I'm not familiar how to post on here "diffs". 99.135.170.109 (talk) 17:18, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• Note The IP seems to be talking about the Ribbon of Saint George page. HighInBC 17:10, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

  The opening statement clearly shows that the user is WP:NOTTHERE to build encyclopedia but rather to push theor POV. I protected an article after it was vandalized yesterday by an IP, and before it was vandalized, another IP was involved in POV pushing distorting sources.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:15, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

The only edit I am seeing by Ym is this which is entirely correct for our project. It was reversing the removal of sourced content with... non-neutral unsourced something. HighInBC 17:22, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Yep, that's some serious POV pushing, no subtlety to it. Yowza. Katie 17:25, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

This is not his only edit. He keeps the overall thrust of the article in a deliberately negative tone by being keen to inject bogus terms or otherwise inherently repelling terms (aka, Kremlin Regime, Russian Government) in lieu of the actual ones, such as to commemorate the legacy of the fallen liberators. His continued clinging onto "sources" (aka, non-reputable, self-proclaiming articles) is very evident, for that's what his actions hinge on. And please, no need to cite his least pronounced edit, while ignoring all others. I don't mean to put any special importance to them, but just have a look at his two reverts of my edits, rather than get fixated on lack of relevance. 99.135.170.109 (talk) 17:32, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

"Kremlin regime" is literally what the source says, but despite your POV pushing and attempts to change it to the opposite meaning citing the same source I am fine with the "Government of Russia".--Ymblanter (talk) 17:40, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

The display of the ribbon has nothing to do with the said government. When the Pope wore the ribbon early this month, he was not supporting "Russian government", he was commemorating the fallen. Please stop that nonsense. The source in question is very biased and clearly unprofessional. If you nevertheless choose to use it, balance it out, so as not to make your personal grudge as obvious. 99.135.170.109 (talk) 17:50, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your personal opinion, but this is not what sources say.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:59, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for putting on a poor act here, but try incorporating the "sources" that are not as pro-Nazi biased as the one to tend to swear by. In fact, since you are "the keeper" of the article, as far as the references go, find something more credible to have the article fall back on. 99.135.173.30 (talk) 19:30, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Just to be clear, HighInBC and I are saying that Ymblanter is in the right here. Not the IPs. There's a long and distinguished history of POV pushing and arguing about Russian nationalism and this ribbon. Ymblanter has acted in an administrative capacity by protecting an article that repeatedly has had sourced content removed from it. I have no problem with his actions here. Katie 18:41, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not disputing his call to protect it. It is the form of it which he protected. 99.135.173.30 (talk) 19:35, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

You mean the wrong version? HighInBC 19:40, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• The IP asks us to "take a moment to consider Ymblanter's actions". So that's what I've just done, and the clear conclusion is that Ymblanter is doing a great job. I also conclude there are POV-pushing IPs trying to distort articles, and that it would be beneficial if we all gave Ymblanter more help and support. I thank the IP for bringing this to our attention. Jeppiz (talk) 19:37, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

  Indeed. This IP should be thanked. Had he not brought this up, User:Ymblanter would probably not be recognized for the good job he his doing. Being an admin is a thankless job, so I thank Ymblanter for having the patience and nerve to continue being a fine admin.—_Chat:Online 22:00, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Woah pro-Nazi sentiment? This is quite a strong accusation which IMO definitely needs diffs. Nil Einne (talk) 21:35, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

99.135.170.109, you have repeatedly made strong accusations while providing no evidence, and per our personal attacks policy, un-backed-up accusations are considered personal attacks. Any more attacks, and a block will be appropriate. Nyttend (talk) 22:18, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Reducing List of social networking websites from indefinite full protection to indefinite 30/500 protection

Hi guys I recently encountered List of social networking websites which under an indefinite full protection, which seems like major overkill given it's history, all the while semi/PC protection doesn't seem like enough of a solution. Looking at the history of the page, it would seem the 30/500 protection is an almost perfect fit for this article, and would go a long way to making it editable by the community. Most problematic edits/edit requests come from users who don't meet this threshold, while the majority that do, meet the threshold.

Since only the community can authorize the 30/500 protection level, I propose reducing the article List of social networking websites from indefinite full protection to indefinite 30/500 protection.

TO CLARIFY: This is a discussion, as required per policy, to protect this single page with 30/500, not if we should make 30/500 a routine protection level.

Another Clarification: This page is already fully protected indefinitely. No one but admins can edit this page. This is a proposal to reduce it to 30/500 protection indefinitely, so more established users can edit it.

• Support per initial statement.—_Chat:Online 15:01, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
• I'd rather if we ran an RFC on the idea of starting to use 30/500 protection outside of the current arbitration-imposed cases in general, before we started looking at requests case-by-case. –xeno 15:03, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

  The community can also authorize the use of 30/500, but this isn't a discussion to change the policy but to keep in line with current policy and to have the community authorize this protection, especially since this would be indefinite protection.—_Chat:Online 15:05, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. The community has not yet decided to authorize this new form of protection, and I oppose it being used anywhere that isn't absolutely necessary. I believe it to be counter to the spirit of Misplaced Pages, the 💕 that anyone can edit. Semi- and full-protection are necessary to protect certain articles, but 30/500 unnecessarily creates a new hierarchy as to who is allowed to edit what. The Wordsmith 15:50, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

  Yes it has. The community and the arbitration committee authorizes certain articles for this level of protection. And arguing "that anyone can edit" goes against your argument as this article is indefinitely fully protected. The disruption is caused by users who usually don't yet possess the extendedconfirmed right.—_{Chat:Limited Access} 16:30, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose 500/30 should only be used when it is known to be a topic area that has external agencies working in some type of coordination to affect the article, where full protection is not sufficient to prevent long-term disruption. It should never be used as a mid-point between semi- and full- since, as the Wordsmith points out, the very notion of it is counter to the open wiki nature of Misplaced Pages. --MASEM (t) 15:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

  So exactly how is indefinite full protection helping the open nature of Misplaced Pages? I can't even edit the article as it stands to make a minor correction if I needed to. With 30/500 protection, bots, and experienced editors can at least edit the article. 30/500 is an ideal protection level in this case.—_{Chat:Limited Access} 16:30, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

  Reading the logs of why that page is fully protected, 500/30 wouldn't help. It attracts random users wanting to add unrecognized social media sites too frequently, which includes users that have passed the 500/30 level. As one of the admins that FP'ed it put it also helps to account for all requests to add sites to the list so that there's little to argue if someone wants to argue for removal or the like. So in this case, this is a use of FP simply to better audit an article that is otherwise a highly attractive one for unsourced/inappropriate additions from across WP but without any constant external influence, so I agree FP is the best call, and 500/30 would not help. --MASEM (t) 16:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

  Is there a reason pending changes cant be used? Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:46, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

  Pending could be used to achieve the stability, but I see the value discussed in the diff above that since all additions have to have an edit request and subsequent discussion, and we are talking a topic area that would seem ripe for favoritism and self-promotion, that having a record of all requests and accepted additions is of high value. But this is a situation unique to that topic area. --MASEM (t) 16:49, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• Please identify the specific phrasing of the policy which enables administrators to use this protection level outside of ARBCOM/AE areas. --Izno (talk) 16:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

  From WP:30/500: "This level of protection is to be applied in topic areas authorized by the Arbitration Committee or the community." This is a community discussion which is competent to authorise the protection on the page. BethNaught (talk) 16:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

  Does that wording give us the leeway to authorize its use on a page by page basis outside ARBPIA3 or the Gamergate pages? I read it as we have to authorize it for topic areas. I mean, I'm all for giving us the ability to use the protection (not necessarily in this case as I'm not convinced it would work) but I'm not sure we can do it. Or am I reading it too literally? Katie 17:32, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

  The wording of the original close was "it only is to be used with respect to pages where the ArbCom or the community has applied the 30/500 limitation". Besides, even if that were not the case, I think that is too literal a reading. BethNaught (talk) 18:18, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• The arbitration committee has made it clear that the community is not prohibited from creating policy in relation to the imposition of 30/500 protection. Whether this is the appropriate forum for that is another question. Speaking generally, 30/500 appears to be a protection level that is a step between semi-protection and full-protection, though much nearer to semi-protection. Like other protection level, it should only be used to protect the encyclopedia and used for a minimal time. No comment on whether this particular case is ripe for this.--Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:05, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support Indefinite full protection is well, not useless, but it is aggravating. Plus, most people who have passed the 30/500 protection are trustworthy. Peter Sam Fan 20:07, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose: The slippery slope has begun. I opposed creating the 30/500 usergroup back when it was proposed at the Village Pump because I feared that this protection level would go from an ArbCom mandated sanction of last resort to just another sanction level. Even the creator of the RfC, Cenarium, recommended that "Pages may be protected by admins with the new level only when a decision of the arbitration committee mandates it". Well, here we are in April, facing a decision whether 30/500 protection should be a routine substitution for full protection or only used under ArbCom authorization. Although I don't like either option, I strongly recommend against the former. Altamel (talk) 20:27, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

  This is not what this discussion is about at all. This protection can only be used by authority of ArbCom or by a community discussion. This is a discussion about to protect this ONE page with 30/500, not to make it routine.—_Chat:Online 23:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

  Allowing this protection once sets a precedent regarding the circumstances that would justify its use. The community should exercise this protection very sparingly, but I don't believe we should start with this particular case. Altamel (talk) 05:06, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

  I'm trying to understand your rational, and it makes sense to an extent, but can you tell me how 30/500, which allows more users, who are likely productive and WP:CLUEful contributors, to edit an article, over the current status quo, which is restricting a page to admin edits only, indefinitely? I'm not proposing this to set a precedent, I'm proposing this because this option upholds the "Encyclopedia anyone can edit" more closely, and see it as the idea solution to the specific problem this article faces. I would otherwise not have proposed this, and requested semi-protection instead, which I initially did, until I learned about the article's history. From my point of view 30/500 isn't meant to be another hierarchical protection level, but rather an in the middle solution when semi isn't enough, leaving the only alternative indefinite full protection, which IMO is unacceptable. If it was only a temporary protection, I wouldn't have bothered starting this discussion. I hope this helps.—_{Chat:Limited Access} 16:43, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose, both procedurally, as this isn't the largest community forum for such a discussion, and on general principles, as my understanding was that 30/500 is for serious problem areas. Fighting over social networks on a list is relatively small-time. —Torchiest _edits 01:34, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

  So as it's a less serious problem area it should have less protection, not more? Peter James (talk) 00:03, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

  I don't understand this oppose either. If this isn't a big problem area, then why leave it fully protected. If it's not a problem area, then semi should be sufficient right? But it isn't. That means to keep disruption at bay, it's either PC2, template, or 30/500, which is a middle-ground solution I am proposing to keeping most disruption at bay, while still allowing all the established editors to edit, not just admins.—_{Chat:Limited Access} 16:35, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support this is already being used, and most opposition is either a request for process or "slippery slope" argument that is unlikely to be a consequence (most BLPs are still unprotected, for example). Peter James (talk) 00:03, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support. Looks like the 30/500 protection seems perfect to me. KGirlTrucker87 (talk) 21:16, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support, assuming that arbcom is not reserving this userright for their own purposes. What is more I think it should be used liberally throughout Misplaced Pages when there is a semi-protection is not enough but protection is too much. That being said I am not sure this is what arbcom intended for the userright or what the status of use of it outside arbcom is. HighInBC 16:53, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose 30/500 is intended to be for Intractable areas of dispute, not as a step down from full protection. Second, if we disclude the 30/500 we're only left with semi-protection as the only place to reduce the threshold to which has been shown to be easily gamed and thereby crash the page back into edit warring about inclusion on the list and going right back up to full protection. Third, as much as we don't want it to be, being listed in Misplaced Pages is a great way to increase the prominance of your venture (whether business, website, art endeavour, etc). See also COI/Paid editing. Fourth, if something needs to be changed/added to the page there is the "Edit Request" way of proposing the change and potentially securing consensus for the change. In short: 30/500 should not be authorized barring a Village Pump discussion authorizing it and Full Protection is not set in concrete. Hasteur (talk) 12:17, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Not the best place for community discussion

Top o' the page clearly says: "This page is for posting information and issues that affect administrators," therefore it is not a proper place for discussing policy changes. If someone wants to make a proposal it goes somewhere like Misplaced Pages Talk:Protection policy, gets slapped with an RFC template and listed on the centralized discussion list. This notion that it's appropriate for the admin corps to make policy decisions a) gives admins, collectively, a bad name, and b) pretty much ensures you're going have non-admin stalkers here. NE Ent 00:06, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Everyone seems to be a little confused. Per the RfC on this matter the community can impose 30/500 restrictions on any article they deem it to be necessary on. That is what this discussion is about. At least that is what I think this discussion is about. This seems like the perfect place for that kind of discussion since this is a highly watched page and things of this level should have a lot of eyes on it. --Majora (talk) 00:19, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Disagree. This page is for admins. For a true community discussion, this discussion should be held exactly at the place you just cited for a previous community consensus on this subject: the village pump. —Torchiest _edits 01:31, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

NE Ent, this isn't a policy change I'm proposing. I don't understand why people seem to be thinking that when I clearly noted above what this discussion is about. To protect a single page 30/500, which requires community approval. I chose AN because we are dealing with a fully protected page, to have it's protection discussed. That kind of requires an admin for that, hence I thought it would be appropriate to discuss here.—_Chat:Online 13:33, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Your problem is that you didn't fill out Form 86-20924Z/3OY in triplicate and file it with the proper affidavits. You'll never work in this town again. BMK (talk) 00:11, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Aw damn. I knew I forgot something. PLEASE FORGIVE ME!!!—_Chat:Offline 04:19, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

No forgiveness - your TPS sheet came in without a cover page. SQL 05:12, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I needed a cover page for that? I thought you only needed that when filing for authorization to change your signature. :-(—_{Chat:Limited Access} 02:46, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

As mentioned the original proposal only intended this as arbitration enforcement, and didn't allow use outside such context. In the discussion, also allowing use by "community consensus" was suggested, and the closer stated it was restricted "to pages where the ArbCom or the community has applied the 30/500 limitation". But the "or the community" mention isn't explained, and I believe not supported by the discussion. It should require a formal proposal at village pump and actual consensus before being suggested for use on a particular page outside AE, and the proposal should specify where and how it should be requested for an article (e.g. on article talk page with mandatory WP:CENT listing...). Cenarium (talk) 22:06, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

ANI is already the noticeboard for community sanctions, which are similar to this; village pump is for decisions that don't require administrator action. If a decision made here is invalid, so are community sanctions (including bans) and these would have to be regarded as lifted. WP:CENT is for discussions with "potentially wide-ranging impacts" - use of this protection on one page wouldn't change anything as a similar discussion would have to take place when it is proposed for another page. It would have less impact than full protection of the same page which doesn't require any discussion. Peter James (talk) 16:35, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

"ANI is already the noticeboard for community sanctions" That is an incorrect statement of practice. In fact, this board (AN) is the preferred board for community sanction discussions. Frequently a discussion about sanctions will arise from an already ongoing discussion on ANI, and the consensus has been to allow them to continue there rather than breaking the flow of the discussion by moving it here, but otherwise sanction discussions are preferred to happen here. It's a bit less like the Wild Wild West here as compared to ANI, so presumably a more reasonable discussion can be held. BMK (talk) 00:49, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

The top of the page says "General announcements, discussion of administration methods, ban proposals, block reviews, and backlog notices". I would say that a discussion on the acceptable use of a new admin tool falls into discussion of administration methods. It is the discussion about if admins should use a tool on a specific page when there is no clear guidance about the tool. If it was a proposal for a policy then I would agree that another place would be better, but this is no different than discussing the use of admin tools in any other specific area. HighInBC 16:57, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

• In the alternative, I hope that people here take the result from this discussion (I'm more of a meh on it) and incorporate it into the protection policy. If 30/500 is a new protection standard, it would be easily just to put it into policy, whatever it is, and then to use WP:RFPP for it in the future. ANI can always be the backstop if no one at RFPP agrees to it. I mean, we have the technical ability to PP2 but that's been wholly rejected for years. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:27, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Administrative backlog