Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:06, 16 December 2016

246 pledges to go...! Then ORCP....!

ITN recognition for 2016 Ryder Cup

On 5 October 2016, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2016 Ryder Cup, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Spencer 17:40, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Says it all, really. Bencherlite 14:41, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Cheers B'lite. I'll be calling when I need someone to do the hard work... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:22, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Andrzej Wajda

On 10 October 2016, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Andrzej Wajda, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Dragons flight (talk) 10:16, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

P.S. Thanks for not giving up on Misplaced Pages. Dragons flight (talk) 10:16, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

^What Dragon said. Lugnuts 08:31, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Alistair Urquhart

On 11 October 2016, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Alistair Urquhart, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:55, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Dario Fo

On 16 October 2016, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Dario Fo, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 05:11, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

TFA

Thank you for History of Ipswich Town F.C. or "This shall be the last time I burden your doorsteps with my pleas of your time and energy!" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:22, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. It's nice to know that despite the general distaste for my presence, that my positive work is still appreciated. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Can't imagine the Main page without you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:01, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Again, very kind. You are in the minority, but I'll continue to defend Misplaced Pages from the mediocre and inadequate. But I'll try to do it really kindly. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

You and I are in the same boat, I guess, - the cabal of the outcasts. We even have it organized ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:33, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

The Rambling Man, I must have been living under a rock for the last couple of months, because I was unaware of the whole kerfuffle. It is too late for me to give you my commiserations, but I doubt you need that anyway. So instead I'll give you my support at a future RFA, if and when that happens. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:52, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Pete Burns

On 25 October 2016, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Pete Burns, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 10:08, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Congratulations

I admire your dedication, and your decision to stick around. Many would have retired under those circumstances. I am very happy that you chose not to do that. Continuity with one's past achievements is important, so that your role here over the years can be appreciated, and your experience drawn upon. You have a legacy you can be proud of: over 10 years of helping to educate the world.

Your respect for ArbCom's decisions sets a good example for others to follow, and strengthens the community and its culture. Thank you.

By the way, I noticed that your user page is missing, and was wondering when we will get to see the new you. ;)

Sincerely, The Transhumanist 23:32, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

		The Excellent New and Improved Editor's BarnstarA toast, to TRM Redux, and starting anew.
		Cheers! The Transhumanist 23:32, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Sakharov Prize

On 28 October 2016, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Sakharov Prize, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:08, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Keith Miller with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948

Hi, hope you are well! Miller in 1948 is TFA on 28 November. I'm not a huge fan of the 1948 series of articles that we have, but they are what they are. However, this one was a little padded and, to be brutal, rather dull. I've gone through and trimmed over 1,000 words from it and generally tidied it up a bit, but I'd like another pair of cricket eyes on it if possible. Dweller has had a quick look but I don't think he got past the lead. If your sanity can bear it, I'd appreciate if you could see how it holds up from a cricket and FA viewpoint. My view is that its OK; not great, but OK for TFA. Any thoughts? Sarastro1 (talk) 23:07, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't got back to you on this. Will hopefully have some time in the next week to take a look at Miller. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:20, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Boxing

Much greetings and well-wishes! It's been a while since I got in touch. No, I'm not scampering here like a wronged kid in a schoolyard again ("Waaah, help me from this meanie IP with a bizarre agenda about hyphens!"), but rather just asking for some advice, whilst taking into account your editing situation.

From November 2015 to February 2016, I pretty much single-handedly undertook the task of creating an MOS for boxing articles, with obvious feedback from fellow editors at WikiProject Boxing. To me it felt like a master stroke in getting rid of all the myriad inconsistencies that resulted in a lack of any sort of guideline. Thus, MOS:BOXING was born. Admittedly I look at it as my "baby" on here. I wouldn't say I view it as something that I own, but I am rather protective over it, and am certainly not willing to back down from the occasional edit-warring user who stumbles along out of nowhere, doesn't like the new and improved format they now see across hundreds of boxing articles (mainly MOS:BOXING/RECORD), and demands changes to it.

Now, I do love me some collaboration and discussion, but more often than not the requests/demands for change are unreasonable (mainly going against the basics like WP:ACCESS, WP:OVERLINK, WP:BULLET, etc.) Thing is, the consensus that I got from announcing the finalisation of the MOS in June could perhaps be considered shaky, as it was pretty much of the silent kind. Previous stages of consensus were achieved in December 2015 and February 2016. However, even though I once had encouragement from the users who supported my proposal at the time, I'm now starting to doubt myself as their voices are seldom heard when I need them, and newer editors who weren't around at the time of those discussions are appearing out of the woodwork and disputing various elements of the MOS (here and here).

So! What I'm rambling (heh) about here is whether you have any experience of consensus-building and MOS'es on WP, and if I have a leg to stand on this case. I know there's RfCs I could start up, but those were already done a year ago, and irritatingly WikiProject Boxing isn't the most active in terms of actual members participating in discussion (besides edit-warring). Right now I'm just thinking the whole MOS that I got going could be torn apart if one or more editors decide to complain, via WP:DRN or someplace, that previous consensus wasn't strong enough. It hasn't happened yet on a large scale, but I fear it could. Do you have any ideas on what I could do in order to give MOS:BOXING a more solid foundation—WP:PROPOSAL, maybe? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 15:21, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I'll need to re-read this tomorrow or Monday before giving a qualified response. Hope you don't mind! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:19, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh no worries. Take all the time you need, it's not urgent. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:22, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Not my intention to pop back up after a month with this—I simply forgot to follow it up. But if you are able to advise in any way, it would be appreciated. My good-faith 'mission' of imposing MOS:BOXING has now taken place across many hundreds of articles, without much backlash or even feedback (at least since the last RfCs about a year ago), but I really want to be prepared on how to handle any future situation with editors who take exception to the project. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:35, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Mac Dreamstate and sorry I didn't get back to you sooner. I've been somewhat distracted by misguided Arbcom enforcements, rogue admins and blocks! Still, I will endeavour to get to you on this, assuming I still have an active account from which to do so! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:37, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Lede-too-short tagging

I have noticed that you usually drop by articles, especially newly-written pages in DYK, and leave the lede-too-short tag, while performing a semi-automated tag. Why not challenge yourself to be bold and improve it yourself? Improvement tags are all too prolific on this site.– Gilliam (talk) 11:55, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I may engage more heavily with articles in which I have interest or knowledge. It's really more up for those who have specific interest in articles to improve them. In reality, if DYK articles have sub-standard leads per WP:LEAD, this should be picked up by the reviewer or promoter of the hook to the prep/queue before it gets as far as the main page. Thanks for your interest in my ongoing quest to keep us from posting poor articles to the main page. I have plenty of challenges on Misplaced Pages, so I feel it unnecessary to add another one to the list! While we're on that topic, could you add references to the Talsi article regarding the twin towns please, otherwise that section is an {{unreferenced section}}. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:05, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I am in agreement with Gilliam on this issue. There is nothing in either the DYK rules or the DYK supplementary rules that requires leads to conform to any MOS guidelines, and I do not think an article about to appear on the front page should have a tag of this sort added to it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:30, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

It matters not a jot about what DYK rules say. Every article on Misplaced Pages should strive to meet the requirements of WP:MOS. In fact, it's only DYK that actively allows that to be summarily ignored. Now then, both of you, please go back to improving Misplaced Pages, just as I do, hundreds of times a week. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:32, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

German articles usually come with only one line of a lead, but I like a bit more, and the tag is a reminder when I only translated and forgot. The tag can be removed with no problem, so where is a problem? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:39, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

The mop

If nominated again, would you accept an RFA nomination?--WaltCip (talk) 14:14, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

It would certainly be hilarious to see the wrath of many editors levelled at me again. It'd sink like a stone I suspect... Given the current 75%+ threshold, I'd need something like 250 supporters to cover those who came large at me during the Arbcom case. Not sure the last time any RFA had that many participants... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:45, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I think in Misplaced Pages's heyday you could have garnered 250 supporters, but many of the high-level contributors of that era have probably been driven off the project, so you may be right. Well, you have me, anyway. That leaves you with 249 more supporters to scrounge up. :-) --WaltCip (talk) 14:55, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

That's very kind of you. I do find I'm spending a lot of time telling admins what needs to be done rather than just being able to do it myself, but I'll hold off for now to see if any other supporters make such overtures! Cheers, The Rambling Man (talk) 14:57, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

After having returned from a couple-of-years long wikibreak, I chanced across your name. I was involved in the discussions about the RD back in the day, and so I was disappointed to see that your adminiship was ended. I had always thought then that your supposedly uncivil comments were directed at editors who, by and large, needed to be confronted over their non-contributory actions. I am gratified to find that you are still active as an editor. 248 to go. Best of luck.;) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:26, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! It's a shame that Arbcom and their minions work on the basis of lies and rigged outcomes, otherwise everything would be just fine. I'm keeping on keeping on, and making sure that lot and the rogue admins they don't want to go after are held to account for their shambolic and unequal actions. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

For what it's worth, just 247. I first voted for you nearly ten years ago, did so again a year later with your RfB, would so again now. :) Acalamari 22:30, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I haven't yet participated in an RFA discussion but I would support you if it came up- though I also wouldn't blame you for not being interested. I thought the result you experienced was unfortunate. 331dot (talk) 22:33, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

The Challenge Series

The Challenge Series is a current drive on English Misplaced Pages to encourage article improvements and creations globally through a series of 50,000/10,000/1000 Challenges for different regions, countries and topics. All Misplaced Pages editors in good standing are invited to participate.

v t e The Challenge series – Current drives
Africa	Africa 10,000 Challenge
Asia	Asia 10,000 Challenge
Europe	European 10,000 Challenge Nordic 2500 Challenge
Latin America/Caribbean	Latin America 10,000 Challenge
North America	Canada 10,000 Challenge United States 50,000 Challenge: California New England New York North Carolina Pacific Northwest
UK and Ireland	UK and Ireland 10,000 Challenge
1000 Challenges by topic	Indian cinema Video games

• Use {{subst:The Challenge series invitation}} to invite others using this template.
• Sent to users at Northamerica1000/Mailing list using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:16, 19 November 2016 (UTC).

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, The Rambling Man. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Category:Association footballers not categorized by position

I disagree. I would prefer to categorize them immediately by position, yes - but I've considered it, and I see no way to comfortably do it with AWB that wouldn't risk making massive errors. This at least places them into a category where they can be identified as lacking and dealt with accordingly.

To your first point. To the second - thanks for the tip. I suspect I know where the issue lies, having examined the article in question, and will re-run the script accordingly to deal with it. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 12:55, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Blimey, you've gone Cat-astrophically mad. More power to your elbow, old boy. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:40, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm a bit annoyed that the world's most prolific Wikipedian (Ser Amantio di Nicolao) is creating all this work. He can easily modify the AWB script to take the position from the infobox and convert it into a category. Instead, he's making hundreds of edits per hour that someone then has to just go and fix. Grim. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:12, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Can I? I don't know how. If you would like to show me how, perhaps I can learn. But as it stands, I don't know how to do that at all. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 01:07, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Butting in, why not pause what you're doing and see if there's a way to get it done right, working collaboratively? For example, a bot could probably do this task. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:55, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 November 2016

• News and notes: Arbitration Committee elections commence

• In the media: Roundup of news related to U.S. presidential election and more

• Blog: The top fifteen winning photos from Wiki Loves Earth

• Gallery: Around the world with Wiki Loves Monuments 2016

• Featured content: Featured mix

• Special report: Taking stock of the Good Article backlog

• Op-ed: Fundraising data should be more transparent

• Traffic report: President-elect Trump

Arb questions

Hi! Could you please clarify what you're asking in your first question to me? Thanks, Ks0stm 19:38, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Not really. It's clear to me and many of the other candidates. If you don't understand the question, I guess you're not really the candidate I'm looking for. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:48, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

FLC

Since you reviewed this last time, I thought you might be interested. No issues otherwise. —Vensatry _(talk) 07:24, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Asking for help at FLC

Hi TRM. Here at FLC, activity is stalling out. Very few of the candidates have enough reviews where we could say there is consensus one way or the other, and we are in need of at least one set of extra eyes. If you ever get tired of all the work you do at ITN and DYK, please consider taking a short break from those tasks and reviewing a few lists at FLC. You could take your pick of just about everything on the page; they almost all need additional reviews at the moment. We would appreciate any help you could provide. While I'm here, congratulations on becoming a delegate once again. If you start closing FLCs again, please be aware that we now need specific source reviews before a list is promoted. Very few people seem to be interested in doing these reviews, which makes the whole process even slower than it was before. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:22, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Giants, long time no speak. Sure, I'll add a few reviews, I note that some of those at the bottom of the list have just one review, unbelievable. Let's see how much time I get (ITN and DYK are easy wins for me, a few minutes here, a few minutes there) while reviewing an FLC is a longer, more committed process. Once I get some time from the 3-year-old and 6-month-old ankle biters, I'll ensure I get cracking with it. Best wishes. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:26, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

ITN recognition for LaMia Airlines Flight 2933

On 29 November 2016, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article LaMia Airlines Flight 2933, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:39, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Margaret Rhodes

On 29 November 2016, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Margaret Rhodes, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:22, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

ITN recognition for David Hamilton (photographer)

On 1 December 2016, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article David Hamilton (photographer), which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:50, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect Interaction Ban Reminder

Hello,

I’m writing to remind you that as a result of the arbitration case that both you and George Ho are prohibited from interacting with each other, barring the usual exceptions. Recently, you posted questions to the election pages of multiple candidates where you indirectly made reference to George Ho. (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11) Please note that such comments are not permitted under the interaction ban and further instances will result in a block. Best regards, Mike V • Talk 22:59, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Mike V No, you're completely incorrect. I made an indirect reference to Banedon. Please check his contributions prior to the Arbcom case. I refuse to accept this warning. On the flipside, the other individual you have named has made overt references to specifically me. That's a direct breach of the IBAN. Please either do your job correctly or don't do it at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:10, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I believe it is quite clear that you were referring to George Ho in regards to canvassing, especially considering that there was a finding of fact in that matter. Your comment is on par with George's and you both have been warned in a similar fashion. Mike V • Talk 23:33, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Mike V then you are sadly, sadly mistaken and are using a bad faith argument to violate my rights. Please redact this "enforcement" immediately. I have referred to no-one specifically, unlike the other user named in your post. You are simply wrong. If you take the time to see how many individuals Banedon canvassed, you'd actually get the point and you may get your job right here. In the meantime I suggest you leave me alone until someone else competent can assess this issue. I have no interest in any "finding of fact" that Arbcom may have "found", I absolutely saw the dozens of posts made by Banedon in the Arbcom case. It was a disgusting and one-sided violation of policy which went entirely unaddressed. You clearly have an issue assuming good faith here and I find it frankly disgusting that you will allow a direct and overt and ongoing discussion of me by the other IBAN user while you concoct some untruth about my editing. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:36, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Mike V do you want me to go back and dig out all the diffs that show Banedon's canvassing? Would that help you understand my point? The Rambling Man (talk) 23:39, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Mike V Here you go 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and they're the ones I found quickly. On the other hand it seems like Arbcom are happy to allow this kind of canvassing to go completely unaddressed and the overt discussions of my actions during that case by a user who is IBANed with me go with a simple warning. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:43, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Don't listen to the nasty man TRM, especially one who hasn't added any article content to the encyclopedia for nearly six months. Ritchie333 10:58, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm now fully accustomed to Arbcom incompetence, but what really irks me here is that Mike V is actually accusing me of being a liar. That's disgusting. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

• Did Mike V just fucking forget AGF? --QEDK (T ☕ C) 16:20, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

  Mike V made two mistakes. He made a mistake by claiming I was a liar, and he made a mistake by failing to apologise for it. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:21, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

  See, Mike V won't see a sudden intrusion into FL as an infringement of IBAN will he? No of course not, because he's too busy being happy calling me a liar. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:25, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

  I don't know why you're all so jeffin' surprised by Mike V's behaviour. As an administrator, he's as incompetent and corrupt as the day is long. Cassianto 00:08, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

It is a dereliction of duty for Mike V not to respond to TRM's answer and diffs; there should either be a counter argument forthcoming that addresses them in a satisfactory way, or, if that isn't possible, an apology for making a mistake. Although sometimes the heat of the moment makes silence seem like the easier option, ultimately it would be disappointing if Mike V were to prove incapable of any kind of response. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:36, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Mike V and the rest of Arbcom shirking responsibility? Really? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:39, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Mike V is not alone, unfortunately; someone called MSGJ has been making a bit of a fool of themselves on John's talk page by being unable to give examples of John's "incivility" after they'd just accused him of it. Very embarrassing, but not unsurprising really. Cassianto 09:36, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Banedon's canvassing was mentioned in the discussion of the arbcom finding of fact that MikeV is citing above. There's ambiguity here, and in the context of accepting or declining cases, it seems more likely that canvassing that isn't discussed in the findings of fact would (i.e. Banedon's) would be the more pertinent issue. ---- Patar knight - /_{contributions} 05:54, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

ITN recognition for 2016 Oakland warehouse fire

On 4 December 2016, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2016 Oakland warehouse fire, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:58, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Ref improve Italian referendum

Hi, I noticed you said that the page on the Italian constitutional referendum, 2016 needs more references. Would you help us improve the page by marking what exactly you think needs references? Thank you. Loudo89 (talk) 10:40, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Well you can easily find whole unreferenced paragraphs (e.g. look at the Political background section). The Rambling Man (talk) 10:51, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

4th Annual GA Cup - Round 1

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016-2017 GA Cup Greetings, GA Cup competitors! November 28, 2016 was supposed to mark the end of the first round. However, we needed 16 competitors to move on, and currently only 10 have completed articles. Thus, the judges have come together to let the participants decide what we shall do. Please complete this quick survey to let us know whether you would like a holiday break. There will be two options for what we will do next in terms of Round 2 depending on the results of this poll. If the survey indicates that the competitors want a break, we will have a 2nd round after the break ends with just the 10 competitors who have reviewed articles, starting in January (with a specific date TBA). If the survey does not indicate that participants want a break, we will extend Round 1 until the end of December. We apologize for sending out this newsletter late. Cheers from 3family6, Figureskatingfan, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase! To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:00, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi :)

Hi Rambling Man. Thank you for the FLC assessment at Misplaced Pages:Featured list candidates/List of Indian Premier League seasons and results/archive1. I've replied to you there, but wanted to put in a note that if you think that the list needs considerable work before again trying for FLC, I'll withdraw the nomination. Thanks (and I adore the work you do here). Lourdes 13:16, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, very kind. I've replied at the nom. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:26, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

ITN recognition for PIA Flight 661

On 7 December 2016, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article PIA Flight 661, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:50, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

ITN recognition for English football sexual abuse scandal

On 7 December 2016, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article English football sexual abuse scandal, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Uzbek presidential election at ITN

Could you possibly have another look at Uzbekistani presidential election, 2016 -- I think it just about meets the minimum now but it's far from my area of interest. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:07, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

This talk page message caught my eye, so I checked the nomination, saw TRM was happy, checked the article and posted it as I too was happy. Teamwork. Bencherlite 23:34, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

The hits keep on rolling! It's marvellous when people actually stop acting like arrogant asshats and start looking at article quality and integrity. EA (above) and a few others have demonstrated that ITN can and does work, as long as you're not an American admin trying to give a free pass to an American story. The effort expended some the recent non-US stories is truly commendable and we should all strive to keep standards high and equal, even for those US stories. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:36, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks both. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:01, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

ITN recognition for December 2016 Istanbul bombings

On 11 December 2016, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article December 2016 Istanbul bombings, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:11, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

ITN recognition for A. A. Gill

On 11 December 2016, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article A. A. Gill, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:15, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Uyo church collapse

On 11 December 2016, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Uyo church collapse, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Spencer 16:01, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

FA

Hi! I'm thinking about getting Peter Prevc to a FA. When I nominated it for a GA, it passed smoothly. Since you helped me a lot with your comments on the Slovenia at the Olympics FL, could I ask you for a quick check of the article in question, so that I know how much work should I invest before the nomination? Thank you in advance! --Tone 21:15, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

For sure. I'm back at work tomorrow but I will hopefully get time to have a once-over. It needs some smoothing out with regard to prose and less of those sections, but it's en-route... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:03, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Closing FLCs

Hey thanks for closing the Clarkson FLC. I reverted some of your edits, such as your pulling it off of the FLC page- the closing instructions have changed since you were last a delegate. Now, you just put {{FLCClosed|not promoted}} on the nomination and sign the edit, and the bot does everything else besides edits to Misplaced Pages:Featured list candidates/backlog/items and Misplaced Pages:Featured list candidates/Closure log. (And WP:FL, if it was a promotion). Doing the steps that the bot does ends up confusing things. See WP:FLCI for more details. --PresN 13:32, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. The "closing instructions" linked to in the header box at FLC need to be updated. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:08, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Arbcom enforcement

Your recent comments have been reported at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#WP:ERRORS. Andrew D. (talk) 23:49, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Colonel. You're a star, I'll be in touch. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:52, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Block Notice

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the ] or ]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily.

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" ). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

Specifically, this is for breaching the remedy that prohibits you from insulting and/or belittling others, as done here: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. As noted in the remedy, you are encouraged to disengage from such situations and let the situation resolve it self or request assistance from another user. Mike V • Talk 03:20, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

@Mike V: Can you and Peacemaker67 get together and figure this out? He's saying on AE that "this seems a bit light on to justify sanctions", but you've blocked TRM for "breaching the remedy" 5 minutes later without commenting. Isa (talk) 03:45, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I would respectfully request that this block be held in abeyance until the discussion sorts this out. 331dot (talk) 04:21, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Having given an incorrect warning a few days ago, having had it pointed out as incorrect, having refused to apologize for said incorrect warning, and having blocked The Rambling Man against any consensus at the enforcement page, I would suggest that User:Mike V is both involved and wrong to have blocked here. This block should overturned. Stephen 05:39, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

And cue User:Mike V's disappearance for a few days while he ignores everything here, including my request for him to apologise for calling me a liar. I wonder why there's so little faith left in Arbcom. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:52, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

What can one say. I would like to think your continual punishment by some allows others to work on regardless, but I think that's me clutching at straws. I have been know to walk to the Butt at a very specific time, imbibe, chat, gench (Ulster English) then walk to get a bus home, hence the time restraints. Happily purchase one for you at some point, but how you get home is another question..... Edmund Patrick – confer 07:35, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

This is unnecessary and making a martyr out of a rambling old man. Nergaal (talk) 09:10, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Discussion started at WP:ANI#Admin accountability and involvedness. Fram (talk) 10:04, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Fram. Problem is that Mike V will just disappear for as long as the block is in place and that will be that. But with luck it'll mean he won't accuse me of lying again. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:08, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

If he does that, then he should be aware that any further blocks of you by him will almost surely result in a boomerang desysop. I can be quite tenacious if it should be necessary. If getting you blocked for another week is all it takes to get him desysoped, it may be worth it :-) Fram (talk) 10:10, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Now there's a thought...! Although since he's basically a front for Arbcom, I can't see a desysop remedy for him.... The Rambling Man (talk) 10:13, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Be careful that you don't insult him though. Let us non-sanctioned editors speak plainly about his failings and keep your thoughts to yourself. Remember, you should always be polite towards anyone who tries to help, no matter how problematic that help may be. Even if they give you bogus warnings and then find a pretext to block you, you cannot be blunt about this. You will have to refine the art of passive agressiveness, backhanded compliments, and oh-so-subtle sarcasm. Fram (talk) 10:21, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, this was a fundamental issue with the imposed sanction, that an admin (let's say in this case he was called MikeV) could unilaterally decide what was considered "belittling". Given the spectrum of capability of our admins, this was always going to be abused at some point. So no longer am I able to call a spade a spade, it's an "earth-moving facilitor"... The Rambling Man (talk) 10:25, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Facilitor? EEng 11:06, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

See, that's another example of the prissy PC universe we live in. When I watched He-Man, Skeletor was actually an evil character without a bone of goodness. These days, "think of the children" &c., and he's a jolly "laugh-at" character who just gets up to a bit of mischief. Crap. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:08, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Correction: Skeletor's from the Masters of the Universe, not PC Universe. EEng 11:34, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Maybe just sticking to the facts ("Sire, please be more careful about images. We can't have unprotected images on the main page") might help? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:46, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

But if you go for the factually inaccurate route of calling a spade "a fork" instead, someone is bound to approve it as a DYK hook... Bencherlite 10:47, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

That would definitely happen. Although I fear this will inevitably end up with me asking for a quad-pack of candles at some point... The Rambling Man (talk) 10:51, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

What the heck. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:25, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Unblock and examination of MikeV's behaviour as an admin

Jayron32 et al, please consider unblocking me while the discussion about the appropriateness of this block and MikeV's behaviour as an admin is discussed. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:47, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid at this point I, et al cannot. According to WP:AE, any admin that unilaterally unblocks you will be instantly and summarily desysopped. I'm not sure anyone is willing to fall on their swords over this. I'm not. However, given that you have made a formal unblock request, I can copy said request to start a discussion at WP:AN to meet the proper terms at WP:AE. --Jayron32 12:49, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Additionally, if you have any comments to any discussion you'd like copy-and-pasted somewhere, just let us know and wea'll help out. --Jayron32 12:50, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I have nothing to add beyond what has been more than adequately covered above and at ANI. The incredible behaviour of the blocking admin who has accused me of being a liar speaks for itself. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:53, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Jayron32 (talk · contribs), Ivanvector has noted the request shouldn't be at ANI or AN but (yet) another noticeboard. This appears to be futile... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:13, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Let's just get it right, is all. It's already been punted from ANI because that was the wrong noticeboard, so we can either discuss at ANI and ignore procedure (because it's silly) or we can follow it and discuss at AE, but either way AN is wrong (or only half right, I guess). I haven't reviewed the details of this at all at this point. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 13:16, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

That's fine, but the dereliction of duty of this admin (block and run) combined with the vast community concern over both the behaviour of the admin and the block, now combined with noticeboard hopping, it's all a little bureaucratic and embarrassing for Misplaced Pages as a whole. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:23, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Ivanvector And based on what Iridescent has just said, it's not actually "wrong" right now. We're just making a huge meal of it. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:25, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I corrected myself. Heaping procedural nonsense on top of other procedural nonsense doesn't help anyone, but I'm sure everyone can already see how the noticeboard-hopping is problematic. It's entirely possible that one board will find you should be blocked while another will find the block should be lifted, then we get to fight about which board has jurisdiction. If we could all follow procedure in the first place instead of planting our flag on whatever shortcut we can type the fastest, these things would be less embarrassing. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 13:29, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Sure, there's not much I can do, I'm blocked, remember?! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:31, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

• I have overturned the block per AN and added a note in the enforcement log. Note that this is specifically to allow the ongoing AE filing to reach its conclusion. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:01, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

  Sorry, but for the avoidance of doubt, does that mean AE is the only place I can edit or am I allowed get on with improving Misplaced Pages? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:03, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

  If you had been unblocked purely for the purpose of participating in the AE discussion, you would have been told that in clear terms. You've been unblocked and returned to general editing powers, but without prejudice to the result of the ongoing AE discussion, where it might be decided that Mike V's block was correct in principle, merely enacted by the wrong person, leading to a reblock. We shall see (but hopefully not...) Bencherlite 14:09, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

  Precisely. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:12, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

  Cheers both. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:13, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

What a truly pathetic display this has been.--WaltCip (talk) 14:06, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

It's not over yet, not by a long way. As you can see, there are one or two individuals (including this admin it would seem) who are tracking me, trawling through my edits and trying to get me off the project. And it won't be over until (a) those admin(s) apologise for accusing me of lying, (b) those admin(s)' behavioural competences are examined and (c) those stalking me are admonished for doing so. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:09, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Response

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I'll do my best to respond to all the comments made here in one fell swoop. In regard to the original warning discussion, it was becoming unproductive and descended into personal attacks by other contributors. I still am confident that the warning was appropriate and if you had intended to discuss Bandeon, you would have mentioned him by name. In regards to the diff you (TRM) provided about George Ho, that is not a violation of the arbitration remedy. He is only forbidden from making edits related to the selection of main page content. He is permitted to edit other content areas, such as the featured list pages. In regards to the block, I do not feel that I was involved. I have only interacted with you in a administrative capacity and the policy explicitly states, "Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about community norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches do not make an administrator 'involved'." I wish to reiterate that I was not aware of the AE discussion. Your conduct was brought to my attention from comments made by other administrators on IRC. I reviewed your user contributions and collected the diffs above. The notice was placed using the "new section" tab at the top of the page. Mike V • Talk 16:17, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Too little too late. And I'm still waiting for you to apologise for accusing me of lying (which you've done again it appears) and I'm still waiting for you to redact the sanction warning. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:21, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

So other administrators were discussing it on IRC (all of them possessing the block button but clearly none of them thinking that action was required, despite it hardly being a tightly-guarded secret that TRM has Arbcom restrictions – all of which might perhaps have given you pause for thought), and therefore you took it upon yourself to be the one to investigate and judge, without even checking TRM's talk page to see whether there was anything about it there? Marvellous. I've not seen the "I jumped right in because I heard about it on IRC" explanation used for a long time, so thanks for reminding me of the bad ol' days. Bencherlite 17:14, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

That's incorrect. None of the administrators were discussing a block. A passing comment was made along the lines of ", told me I 'need to grow a pair'." I've already addressed how I am not involved in regards to TRM. Mike V • Talk 18:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Did I say that the administrators were discussing a block? No. Your explanation has changed from "comments made by other administrators" (plural) to "a passing comment" from one administrator involved in the ERRORS thread, I see. As for there being no failure to investigate when you didn't check even TRM's talk page.... well, let's just say that you and others will have to disagree about the merits of your investigation. For all you knew, the matter could already have been dealt with at AE with a decision made not to block. Bencherlite 18:50, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it's refreshing to see the old "shoot first and ask questions" later approach to administrating. "I didn't bother to investigate, so I can't be blamed" is a great defense. Thanks for saying that. It brought humor to an otherwise grave misapplication of justice. Now really, Mike V, why did you block him. You can stop joking now. --Jayron32 17:29, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I've already provided the explanation and diffs that support the rationale for the block. There was no "failure to investigate". Mike V • Talk 18:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, there was. You're a disgrace as an admin. EEng 18:26, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

• While I appreciate the sentiment of injustice, I doubt it is a fruitful endeavour to continue to criticize and attack Mike V's action here. If you do believe there is a pattern of bad administrative decisions, you're of course welcome to take it to ArbCom, but I don't think it's helpful to you, TRM nor to Mike to keep being toxic towards him. It won't make anything better. Plenty of commenters on AN and AE have voiced their opinion and I'm sure Mike is reading it and taking it in. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:48, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

The overwhelming experience of the past is that he doesn't take it in, unless you mean in one ear and out the other. EEng 18:26, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

• Mike V, of course you weren't aware of the AE discussion: you were in too much of a hurry putting another notch in your belt and reassuring yourself you're the big swinging dick to even bother looking at the most recent post on the talk page of the user you were about to block. Comments at your RfA were amazingly prescient:

• "I question this user's ability to discern when blocks are necessary and when they are not"
• "Does seem to prefer drastic action rather than attempting to discuss matters first."
• "Talk page archive reveals a number of contentious or over-hasty actions"
• "I fear I see a general trend of eagerness take punitive action rather than problem solving"
• "Over-eager with his desire to block"

If ever anyone ever deserved desysopping, it's you. Why don't you just save the community the time and trouble (it will take two or three more 50-editor dramas like this one before even your apologists give up) and voluntarily resign? TRM has serious problems, but I'd take 50 of him over one of you. At least he actually contributes content – something you never do (and as someone commented at your RfA, "I'd like to see some evidence of constructive editing"). EEng 18:22, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Another poor block by Mike. There's a shock. Good job we've got WP:ADMINACCT to weed out the bad ones. Oh wait. Lugnuts 19:12, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Salvidrim! "I'm sure Mike is reading it and taking it in". Not in the slightest. Mike V is reading it and denying any wrong-doing whatsoever, including re-iterating his position of calling me a liar. Bencherlite while I'm not undoing your closure, I would note that Salvidrim! has completely missed the point when it comes to Mike V's obvious dereliction of WP:ADMINACCT. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

If you believe Mike demonstrates dereliction of his duty of accountability and/or doesn't possess the judgement needed to perform admin/CU actions, a case should be brought to ArbCom. I'm not saying whether it's the case or not -- but you seem to think so, and I'm simply pointing you to the proper venue to voice your concerns. I've worked with Mike somewhat over the years around SPI, but don't believe I'm defending him in any way (I do remember some brash IPBE drama), I'm just saying continuing to vilify him on your talk page will not lead to anything good for you nor for the project. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:29, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

No, I'm not "vilifying" anyone, I'm asking why he hasn't apologised for and redacted the accusations of me being a liar. I'm asking why he hasn't responded to the responses to his incorrect warning. These are reasonable requests of an admin. Yet there seems to be an undercurrent of "in the club" admins (as demonstrated at AE where there was a very clear consensus that Mike V had overstepped the mark, and even below where The Wordsmith agrees that his accusations are not good, yet there's no focus at all on getting Mike to improve, just to sweep it under the carpet. I know that if I started a case at Arbcom it'd be laughed out of town because the recent treatment of me by them. You know that too, so your suggestion is simply hollow. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:35, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Work that needs to be done

• Cwmhiraeth the caption for Prep 3 is far too wordy, it needs to be succinct, something like "Vinicius doll being retrieved". The Rambling Man (talk) 06:55, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
• Cwmhiraeth (prep 3) " that the €11 million spent by AS Monaco FC in 2012 to sign Lucas Ocampos was the most ever for a Ligue 2 player?" one of the two sources used for that fact states "to live up to his €15 million (£11.8m) price tag" while the other says "had to offer €11m (plus €2m in add-ons) " so the current hook needs work. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:58, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
• Cwmhiraeth (prep 3) "artwork at Othello station in Seattle, Washington, include" artwork is singular so this should be "includes". The Rambling Man (talk) 07:00, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I've dealt with points one and three and will look into point two. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:09, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I have replaced the footballer hook. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:39, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll check the rest later. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:41, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth The rest look okay, although I noticed in Prep 2 we have "7 ... 7 ... 7" which we'd normally (per MOS) write as "seven ... seven ... seven..." The Rambling Man (talk) 09:27, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I think I'll leave the sevens for someone else to change if they want. The hook is already long enough. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:39, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth Is it long compare with "...that after the base of the dome of the New Jersey State House was painted in a shade of blue, George H. Barbour introduced legislation that would require the dome to be restored in its traditional gold with an off-white base?"? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

When I move hooks to prep I copy them verbatim. I make tweaks to hooks as separate edits and I do this immediately after I have completed the set. Perhaps I should leave the "inuse" tag in place until I have done my tweaking to prevent edit conflicts. Or you could leave five minutes after I have completed the set before you start on the hooks. Have a look at this history for Prep5 to see what I mean. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:36, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Comment

Fram, thanks for correcting me, I was basing my comment on that of the very disgruntled nominator whose hook was corrupted via some kind of "correction". The Rambling Man (talk) 09:36, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth apologies for that, see my explanation above. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:53, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I thought this page could do with brightening up

	Here's something sparkly.
	Cheers Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:46, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Cheers mate. Much appreciated. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:48, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration Enforcement request closed

I have closed the enforcement request against you with the following resolution:

The Rambling Man is warned that continuing to use unnecessarily harsh language is likely to result in being blocked. No further action is taken.

Regards,

The Wordsmith 20:10, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

The Wordsmith, that's all very interesting, but please tell me what action is going to be taken against Mike V who has repeatedly accused me of lying? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:55, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

That's not related to enforcing an Arbitration decision, so I made no finding at AE. For the issue of Mike's accusation (which I agree is not good), you need to go through the normal dispute resolution channels. AN or ANI would be the proper venue. The Wordsmith 21:00, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I see. So Mike V gets off completely 100% scot-free for a bad block, an involved block, two accusations of lying, and failing to be accountable for his actions despite me asking him to retract his accusations and remove the incorrect warning at Arb Enforcement? I see. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not saying that he gets off scot-free. The AE board is only empowered to deal with enforcing Arbcom-imposed remedies and discretionary sanctions. I don't believe that Mike is under any sanctions (feel free to point out if I'm wrong), so that board literally cannot do anything. If you want to start a request at the proper venue, I'd happily comment there. The Wordsmith 21:06, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

The whole discussion started at ANI then moved to AN so it's been covered and covered up by now. I get it. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:09, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

• I encourage you to open a new ANI thread. Mike V is a disgrace, and it appears there are lots of people now who see that. EEng 21:34, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

  As I mentioned above, if I start it, it'll be "sour grapes" and my credibility at Arbcom is currently -1. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:38, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I said ANI. You might be surprised. EEng 21:40, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Anyone can do that, what I'm saying is that the complete *shrugs shoulders* at the AE from "uninvolved admins" about Mike's behaviour doesn't fill me with any confidence at all. He just gets a free pass to accuse editors of lying. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:46, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I'd suggest focusing more on the cowboy/INVOLVED blocking while the AE thread was just getting underway. Unexplained/overturned blocks seem to be his specialty, and people seem to know it. EEng 21:58, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Well there are sufficient editors involved in this debacle now for me to avoid suffering yet more indignation at the hands of The Club (tm). Someone else can start that debate. All I want from Mike V is an acknowledgement that accusing me of lying was below-par behaviour for anyone, let alone an admin. An apology would be nice too. As for the rest of the behavioural issues, anyone can discuss those, there's been enough written about him today to fill three ANI reports. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:33, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I think you'll be waiting a long time for that, Rambler; it saddens me to say, but reporting Mike V at ANI will be a complete and utter time sink; I think the complaint will last about as long as a fart in a colander and I base that prediction on the progress of my request to have him admonished at AN earlier today. Cassianto 00:21, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

You've started no such thread; you made a comment in a different thread to that effect; that thread was closed when it was resolved shortly after your comment, and your request was not acted on because it wasn't a thread ABOUT Mike V, and it was closed anyways. You can't say no one would support such a discussion when you never actually started the discussion. Of course, you still probably won't, because if you did and people were to support your thesis, it would ruin your belief that the admin corp is a monolithic evil that exists to ruin Misplaced Pages and has no desire in admonishing other admins. The nice thing about NOT starting the thread is you can continue to assert that because you'd have no proof to the contrary. If you did start the thread, it may actually succeed, and as a result, the belief you've built so much of your Misplaced Pages personality about would be severely damaged. Quite the conundrum. --Jayron32 00:32, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Please re-read my comment, Jayron32. At no point did I start a thread about anything. I called for an admonishment of an incompetent admin in a thread that was partly to do about an incompetent admin. Also, how do you know what my "belief" is about anything? We've never interacted before and until yesterday, I'd never even heard of you. So wind your neck in. Cassianto 09:47, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I know. I told you you didn't start a thread. That's the point. If you want something done you have to, you know, do something about it. You've made it clear you have no intention of fixing the problem, but you seem quite happy to complain that the problem (which you've made no attempt to fix) won't be fixed. "I want this problem fixed". "You've done nothing to fix it". "The problem won't be fixed". That's the issue. --Jayron32 12:03, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

It's clear that you have no problem ignoring the problem. Keep it in the club, eh? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:04, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I've never said that. I've said, in no uncertain terms, that if you started a thread at WP:AN to fix the problem, I would clearly support you, and I firmly believe many others would as well. What I won't do is do your work for you. --Jayron32 12:12, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Jayron. If ever there was a time to do something about this, it's now. EEng 01:00, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Don't bother, it's china town. If the recent Michael Hardy case is any indication, they would much rather circle the wagons and even attempt to admonish folks not even involved in the case than admit for one fucking second that they can do any wrong or should have any accountability. It's hilariously pathetic and a farce of the highest order. --Tarage (talk) 01:09, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

If so many other people believe Mike V has abused his tools, they are welcome and encouraged to start a thread at ANI. Any thread I start there will be hijacked by the likes of Colonel Warden (Davidson) and Banedon, seizing yet another chance to haul me through the mud. I've had enough drama here to last a while. And Jayron32, when did I state I "started ... a thread" at AN, ANI or AE relating directly to Mike V? I don't recall claiming as such. All I stated was there was more than enough evidence at those three venues of people's disappointment in the misbehaviour of Mike V to fill three ANI reports. Yet right now it's all been swept under the carpet and, as I mentioned, the "uninvolved admins" all thought his behaviour acceptable to the point where nothing is being done by any of them. So much for WP:ADMINACCT, it applies to all admins equally, just to some more than others. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:57, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Summary of above exchange "This admin needs to be held accountable" "Please start a thread at WP:AN where you lay out your case" "No, because admins aren't held accountable". --Jayron32 12:00, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Mike's behaviour was discussed and no further action was taken at AE. I fail to see any likelihood of a different outcome at another drama board. Mike V is immune, and the odd thing is that you actually know that but seem too proud or something else to admit it. Or you disagree and think Mike V's behaviour has been just fine, in which case we have nothing more to discuss. Or, you agree that Mike V's behaviour is sub-par for an admin, and yet you're not going to do anything about it. Gotcha. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:03, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I believe that the outcome of any such discussion would be different than you say it would be. I believe that it's much easier to assert that a situation exists and then do nothing about it, than it would be to actually do something about it, which is why you haven't. Look, you have a legitimate complaint; whether you act on it or not is up to you. Asking other people to do the work you need done for you seems unreasonable. "I have a legitimate complaint." "Well yes you do... You should do something about that." "No, you should..." That's the exchange we're having. If you've the aggrieved party, you should do something about it. You'll get a lot more support than you suppose. --Jayron32 12:10, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• TRM were you told if the improper block counts as one of the blocks under the arbitration remedy? 331dot (talk) 10:41, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

  No, but I assume it will be, in any case Mike V will just get the urge in due course to find fault with me once again despite accusing me of being a liar twice and block me for a week. Prepared to put money on it. Of course, given the result above, it should not be an arb remedy block, and given my clear warning to Mike V that he has got it wrong, the previous warning he applied to me should also be removed. But that won't happen either because Mike V is untouchable and so is Arbcom. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:47, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

  Actually, the enforcement log has been updated to record that the block was overturned as hasty and involved: Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The_Rambling_Man#Enforcement_log. Bencherlite 10:53, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

  But Mike V's previous incorrect allegations against me have been left to stand, right? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:00, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

The full quote is "errare humanum est, sed perseverare diabolicum" - "To make mistakes is in the nature of being human, but to persist is the nature of the devil." Just for interest. --RexxS (talk) 19:48, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I suspect equating the abusive actions of an admin with the devil would result in someone feeling belittled and a lengthy break for me, so I'm glad I'm not reporting that to be the case! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:03, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Okay then, you all win

New thread started at here at WP:AN. Please contribute as much as you said you might. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:28, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I have closed the ANI thread, finding a community consensus that Mike V is banned from taking administrative action against you. In the meantime, as I said over there on the thread, trying to force an apology out of Mike is probably unproductive. See you around on WP:ERRORS. Ritchie333 12:41, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Your close at AN leaves unresolved the issue of the logged warning Mike V made to TRM. What is your evaluation of that aspect of the situation? EdChem (talk) 12:47, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't think I can do much about that, aside from agree with everyone who said it was poor judgement, partly because it's difficult to "un-log" something, partly because the log also shows Mike V's judgement clearly being reversed after community consensus (leading me to believe it won't be respected) but also because I made a snarky comment about it up-thread (which I guess means somebody is going to come along and accuse me of being WP:INVOLVED this afternoon, but that's life....). I hope the ban is going to send a serious shot across the bows to admins that the community doesn't put up with this sort of nonsense anymore. Ritchie333 13:05, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Ritchie, I think I was not clear. Here is the log in question: Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man#Enforcement log. You will see that the logged block has a notation that Mike V's action was reversed by the community (as you mention), but I was meaning the logged warning of allegedly violating the interaction ban, which has no such annotation, and which is one of the things TRM is upset about. I am aware of your earlier comments, and yes I can see the possibility of you being challenged because of it. As I said at AN, I don't see attempting to force an apology as useful nor viable, but I do think it is possible to address TRM's concerns with a statement of community consensus. You have done that with respect to Mike V's involvement, which I appreciate. I also hope that this is taken as a warning that interactions "only in an administrative capacity" is not a shield for any action no matter how biased so long as no content editing / dispute has taken place. You didn't relate a view on community concerns about Mike V's judgement beyond pointing to ArbCom, which I find a little disappointing but can also understand. However, the interaction ban warning and Mike's insinuations about TRM's honesty / integrity are issues about which he clearly feels strongly, and I think they need to be addressed to get to a resolution sufficient for TRM to move on. If you can't make a determination, then perhaps call for another admin to address this aspect, perhaps? Thanks. EdChem (talk) 13:25, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

(ec) The problem is that it's officially logged as a breach of the sanctions so that needs to be fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:26, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Ritchie333 And Mike V has already moved on to requesting other admins to "deal with me" so the admin IBAN is already moot. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:27, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Just see this. Strikes me now as a vendetta, that everything I say or do here is going to be reinterpreted as a breach of sanctions. The AN closure seems inadequate to me I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:37, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

If y'all want to re-open the thread and look for another solution, just go ahead and do it. I'm not going to have a go at you for expressing an opinion. I do agree with Boing! said Zebedee when he says you've got to start with small steps; I'm sure if I wandered in demanding the immediate global locking of Mike V, I'd be laughed out of the room. Ritchie333 13:41, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not seeking his desysop or anything, just that the sanction log is corrected so that it reflects the reality and not Mike V's view of what I wrote. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:45, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Okay, but this is a log entry which I responded with "don't listen to the nasty man, especially one who doesn't contribute to article space", which means I'm probably not the best admin to enforce that. Ritchie333 13:47, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Well it depends, if you still felt that you could interpret the consensus at AN to close the thread and sanction Mike V (albeit 12 hours too late, as I noted above, not your fault), there seemed, to me at least, to be sufficient consensus that the log entry was incorrect, as was the warning. I would like the aspects of that log entry relating to me expunged and Mike V informed. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:49, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

How about something more fun?

I see you had quite the "interesting" day. As a break from all the drama, would you mind doing me a favor at Misplaced Pages:Featured list candidates/List of parrots/archive1? The nominator asked for an example of alt text, in response to a comment of yours, and I fear that they are confused at this point. Maybe you could give them an example or two, or indicate how good the most recently proposed alt text is. Thanks for any guidance you can offer. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:17, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Does "List of parrots" include people reciting reasons that Mike V shouldn't be desysopped? EEng 03:00, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Giants 2008 yes, a busy day and a highly embarrassing one all round for Misplaced Pages. But hey ho. As for alt text, I'm not an expert in any way on this. If I was pushed for a resource to go to for help here, I'd say RexxS would be ideal. However, PresN stated that we're no longer pushing for alt text to be added to images at FLC, although that, in my opinion, contravenes WP:ACCESS and MOS:IMAGES. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:57, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Giants2008 gah, let's try that ping again... The Rambling Man (talk) 10:59, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I think FAC also stopped enforcing the alt text portion of the accessibility guidelines. When people starting asking for alt text there, a lot of reviewing time was spent on explaining the requirements to nominators, and it was discussed heavily on FAC talk for a while. It ended up putting off participants more than anything, from what I remember. It's still asked for sometimes, but it's seen as more of a nice feature than a requirement; there isn't systematic checking of every article, the way there is for sources/images. With that in mind, I'll ask you to revisit the other comments, and wish you a good day. Cheers. Giants2008 (Talk) 16:14, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Well I think there's a way of displaying all the alt text for every image in an article, but the point is moot if we no longer enforce it. If that's really the case, and at FAC too, we should address it at WP:ACCESS to tone down any perceived requirement and make it a nice-to-have. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:16, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I've provided the counter-argument in favour of having alt text (where useful) and given some examples. On other occasions, I've pointed out to the FAC folks that failing to meet world-wide accessibility standards (let alone Misplaced Pages's own MOS) is hardly commensurate with articles that "exemplify Misplaced Pages's very best work". --RexxS (talk) 16:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

So, RexxS, sorry to beg more of your time, but would you consider alt text to be of use in the mass of images used in the List of parrots? Would you be able to give a good example of alt text from any one of those particular "parrot shots"?! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:30, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Of course, TRM. It's probably hard to spot among the threads on Misplaced Pages:Featured list candidates/List of parrots/archive1, but here's what I wrote about the parrot shots:

• It is true that in many cases the description of the image will be mundane, but you need to ask yourself what the purpose of including each image is? If it's purely decorative, then I'd say the images should not be there. If it's to show viewers what that species of parrot looks like, then I suggest that you ought to be also providing as much of that information to blind visitors as you can. For example, a screen reader coming to the image File:Psittacus erithacus -perching on tray-8d.jpg is likely to hear something like "Psittacus erithacus dash perching on tray dash eight dee dot jay pee gee link File colon Psittacus erithacus dash perching on tray dash eight dee dot jay pee gee". That's really not very helpful. I suggest that setting the alt text to something like "A grey parrot with black beak, white face and a short red tail" would prove far more useful to someone who can't see the image (for whatever reason).

To expand on that, a screen reader could hear instead "A grey parrot with black beak, white face and a short red tail link File colon Psittacus erithacus dash perching on tray dash eight dee dot jay pee gee" Does that help? --RexxS (talk) 16:48, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

If it matters, when I review images in FAC I always recommend/request ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:03, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I think it does matter, and thank you Jo-Jo. I'm not upset when I see a FA promoted without alt text, but I do feel disappointment that an opportunity has been missed to set an example. It's understandable that FAC found alt text too unstable a concept to implement properly some years ago. But the guidance has settled down over time and I think is quite usable now. We shouldn't be seeing any of the extreme examples like "black and white photograph of a man with a black jawbone beard, sunken eyes and a stovepipe hat, wearing a dark jacket over a white shirt". Those kind of descriptions really don't offer much encyclopedic information to a user of a screen reader. On the other hand, it should be obvious that it's informative to tell someone whose eyesight has faded, but still understands colour, that an African grey parrot has a black beak and a short red tail. Keep up the good work! --RexxS (talk) 17:29, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Yep, that's my feeling too. The alt text is a great idea for such situations as you've described. I'm going to keep suggesting we use it at FLC, or until such a time it's entirely removed from WP:ACCESS. Thanks again RexxS for your insightful input here, as ever. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:02, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I hope no one minds if I pop in here, but I noticed this discussion and it raises an issue I had wondered about. As I understand it, alt text is meant to be a description of an image for (say) a visually impaired reader. I am unsure what I could put that would be helpful in the chemistry content which I write. For example, I am presently working on pyrithione and think I could give a description that is a re-hash of the text, but the point of the images is to convey structures. I will be adding a link to File:Zink-Pyrithion.svg which is the form in which pyrithione occurs in anti-dandruff shampoo, but if I put "structure of zinc pyrithione", that doesn't convey much. If I say "two anions of the conjugate base of pyrithione chelating to a tetrahedral zinc(II) centre", which is accurate, it requires a reasonable understanding of chemistry. Should I be starting with an alt on the infobox image something like "Equilibrium between the two structural forms of pyrithione. The one on the right shows the thiol form, a pyridine-N-oxide with a mercapto functional group bound to carbon number 2. The one on the left is the thione tautomer with a hydroxyl functional group bound to the nitrogen atom and a double bond from carbon number 2 to a sulphur atom." Advice or thoughts welcome. I have worked on the aromatisation article which still needs one major section added (on aromatisation in biochemical contexts) and then I plan to put it to GA, and I've wondered about FA, but the ALT text issue struck me as daunting. Thanks. EdChem (talk) 09:22, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Script edit at aluminium triacetate

Hi TRM, regarding this edit you recently made, script assisted, to the aluminium triacetate article: I appreciate the tweaks made re dashes and arrows, etc, but note that right near the end of the article one of the dashes in a doi for a journal article has been changed so that it no longer targets this which takes you to the journal article but instead targets this error message. I have repaired the link, but wanted to mention it to you so you can keep an eye out for when the script alters doi fields in templates. If this script is breaking other doi links, I think it will need tweaking (no idea if it is your script or how to do that, by the way). The script also changed the url for the final reference in the article, changing "dq=isbn:0854046275" to "dq=ISBN0854046275" in a google books link. I have no idea if this change matters – in any case, that url is poorly targeted so I have fixed it to actually show the page referenced. Thanks for checking on the upcoming DYK articles, and I thought you would want to know when something has gone awry. Regards, EdChem (talk) 09:07, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Definitely, thanks for letting me know. The script seems to take on a life of its own sometimes, occasionally dashing ISBNs for instance. I normally catch it before committing, but not in this case. Sorry and cheers for the note. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:09, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

AE

There is an open discussion at AE. Mike V • Talk 15:06, 16 December 2016 (UTC)