Misplaced Pages

:Administrators' noticeboard/Community sanction: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 18:18, 17 February 2007 view sourceGordonWatts (talk | contribs)4,767 edits Q: Sarah: If you ask that someone w 1st-hand knowledge not edit in his-her area of expertise, then all doctors would be prohibnitted from editinmg medical articles; Is this what you seek??← Previous edit Latest revision as of 19:45, 3 June 2022 view source Xaosflux (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Bureaucrats, Importers, Interface administrators, Oversighters, Administrators83,941 edits nav request 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{historical|WP:CSN}}
<!-- BEGIN WERDNABOT ARCHIVAL CODE --><!-- This page is automatically archived by Werdnabot-->{{User:Werdnabot/Archiver/Linkhere}} <!--This is an empty template, but transcluding it counts as a link, meaning Werdnabot is directed to this page - DO NOT SUBST IT --><!--Werdnabot-Archive Age-2 DoUnreplied-No Target-Misplaced Pages:Community noticeboard/Archive1--><!--END WERDNABOT ARCHIVAL CODE-->
{{/Header}} {{editabuselinks}}
{{Administrators' noticeboard navbox|csn=yes}}
__NEWSECTIONLINK__
<!-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -->
<!-- New entries go down at the *BOTTOM* of the page, not here. -->
<!-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -->


This was the '''community sanction noticeboard'''. This forum was previously used for the discussion of ], prior to consensus at ] that another venue would be better.
== Restored Open RFC that was not listed ==
Just restored an rfc that was no longer listed at ]:


Though the history is retained so that previous cases may be referenced, new issues should be raised at ] (for new ban discussions or other long discussions) or ] (for more specific incidents relating to previous sanctions).
]


]
--] 19:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

:It would appear that ] removed a number of elderly and stale RfCs, but did not archive them - probably not a good idea, and I may look into it and try to link the missing ones into the archives. The Abu badali one really should be closed and archived, though; it seems to be providing a pretty good bulls-eye, and if the issue hasn't been resolved in the nearly three months since it was filed, then it should probably move to arbitration. ] <small>]</small> 21:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
:: Hmm, well, I suggest folks go take a look anyway. --] 22:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

== Vandalism by IP Address: 70.106.74.152 ==

Sorry to post something like this here, but I don't know where else to tell people about it.

I was looking at the ] page when I noticed that it was pretty severely vandalized. Then, looking at the history I saw that it was by someone with the IP address '''70.106.74.152'''. (Sorry, I don't know how to link that to a contribution history.) Anyway, this person/address has about 500 edits, many of which seem to be pure vandalism.

Can someone tell me where I should report it? I'm at work now, so I don't have enough time to revert all those myself... --] 20:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
(sorry, I forgot to sign it the first time) --] 20:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
: ] is probably the best place :P. '']'' 20:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
:: I looked there before I posted here, but I didn't think it was appropriate--that pages says "after repeated warnings," but I haven't given any warnings yet. Anyway, since that was the only good place to do it, I went ahead and posted there. Thanks! --] 21:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

== Proposal to community ban {{vandal|CroDome}} ==

Hello. I'd like to introduce you to our latest POV-warrior, {{vandal|CroDome}}. Examples of his behavior include , , , and then (here we go) , and this comment:

: ''You talk of ethnic hatred? I am today forced to live with Serbians. Do you know that every single moment of my life is fear? You might never know when a Serb couldn't attack me from a corner and cut my throat! I don't want to die, I want to live - but many Serbs have proven hostile to me, and I think that they want nothing but even more dead Croats, and they've aimed at me. You cannot possibly know how I feal, for you're not in Serbia (one of the most fascist governments on erth).'' (I cannot find the diff, perhaps the revision has been ].)
::Here is the diff: ] 21:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

He proceeded to nominate {{user5|Kubura}} for ] , and when Kubura did not accept , CroDome proceeded to badger him with this comment.

In regards to this unacceptable behavior on CroDome's part, I believe we as a community should stop this user from editing permanently. Therefore, I propose a '''community ban''' for this user. '']'' 20:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
::Diffs 7 & 8 will come up blank because I deleted the RFA. Nom didn't want it and it appeared to be POV motivated without his consent. It was never listed for comment, so I removed it completely.--] 21:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
:::<s>A little bit of devil's advocacy here: What if the guy really ''has'' been harrassed and threatened in real life? There's certainly a history of such discord between the relevant groups. I can see a community ban on the basis of the RfD shenanigans alone. But I'm a little uneasy about statements that he has been harrassed (which may well be true for all we know) being used as evidence against him. ] 21:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)</s>Had I seen some of the edits cited below I wouldn't have brought this up. ] 22:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
:::: It is certainly sad if he has been attacked before in real life, but ]. '']'' 21:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
:::::Point taken, thanks. ] 22:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
:::: If one harbours hatred towards an ethnic group for whatever reason, and their edits clearly reflect this hatred with no attempt to even mask it let alone leave it behind before saving, then this editor does not belong on wikipedia. This is Misplaced Pages, not a personal blog to display your bias and POV (which he is certainly using it as). ] 22:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
*'''Endorse''' - We do not need this kind of editing: I see nothing bar disruption, personal attacks, POV-warring and incivility. Point me, please, to a single productive edit this user has made, because I'm seeing none myself.
] <sup> ]</sup> 21:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
:*I believe the reason we see no productive edits from this user is because we are dealing with a joke account, meant only to provoke and disrupt others. ] 22:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
*'''Comment''', I don't see much positive here, but I can't really get behind a ] of an editor who has never gotten so much as a block. An indef of the account is one thing, but IMO a ban is a pretty severe place to start.--] 21:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
** Well, I've brought CroDome up on ] ''three times'' at various stages, and nobody has actually blocked him. '']'' 21:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
*<edit conflict>'''Comment''' I agree with Isotope23. A ban for a user with 41 edits seems rather harsh - especially as the account is only 3 days old. I was going to oppose on the grounds that it very early days inhis wiki career but looking at the user's talk page I can see lots of warnings and not much in the way of learning. Indef block as a vandal by all means but I just can't see how this user is so objectional that they have earned a community ban so quickly. --] 21:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
:*User may appear to be new to Wiki but then one must question how within a few days he already nominated someone for adminship or even knew HOW to nominate someone. I have been here for what "appears to be" longer than CroDome and I still don't know how to nominate someone. Or even, how does the user know what adminship entails? How would the user know where to find all this information in such a short time span... All of these raise red flags. ] 22:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

*'''Nonconcur/Nonsupport''' At this time I can not support. It is very difficult to imagine a new editor already exausting the communities patience. Explore ] dispute resolution and short term ] in the event of repeated policy violation. Thanks, ] <sup>]</sup> / <sub>]</sub> 21:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - and what will happen? Sure, he'll get blocked again and again, make no productive edits, and we'll be back here again in a few months having wasted a lot of time. Certainly I see no reason to think that this editor is here for any other reason other than to promote his brand of hatred. ] <sup> ]</sup> 09:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
*'''Strong Endorse''' - These edits are unacceptable: (1) , (2) , (3) , (4) , and probably the worst of all, (4) . And these are just 4 of his unacceptable edits! If this isn't enough to get user banned, I don't know what it would take... In addition to not following more serious rules regarding neutrality/civility/personal attacks, user refuses to follow the simplest of Misplaced Pages rules (signing w/ 4 tildes) after being notified plenty, which foreshadows future failure to follow Misplaced Pages rules. This user CLEARLY shows no signs of changing his ways, he has been not only warned many times, but users have actually taken the time to explain to him how to change his behaviour, all of which he ignores. ] 22:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
'''Support''', this is unacceptable racism that has no place on Misplaced Pages. I don't know if he's trying to be funny or if this is deeply rooted vandalism, but it is still dead wrong. <s>Ban</s> Block him ASAP. Please note: I was unaware of the implications of "ban". I think we should block him for a bit, and see what happens. '''''<font color="darkblue">]</font><font color="lightblue">]</font>''''' 22:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

'''Question''' Where are the diffs detailing where someone has attempted to educate the user? ] <sup>]</sup> / <sub>]</sub> 22:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
: ] 22:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
: ] 22:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

:* Thank you for providing Diffs, however, at this time I can not support a community ban. Note the user is new, and without a block log. I must strongly encourage the community to use ] and strongly encourage the application of ] where appropriate. Without a block history for disruption or policy violation, I can not at this time support a ban. Regards, ] <sup>]</sup> / <sub>]</sub> 22:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

'''Disagree with ban''', but agree that this editor's conduct has been unacceptable. The editor should be given a clear and final warning that blanket statements regarding ''any'' race (or editors of that race) are absolutely unacceptable and will result in a quickly-escalating series of blocks. If this advice is ignored even after implementing several such blocks, I would reconsider. ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 22:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
:* I endorse Sera...'s above statement. Sounds like a good recommendation. ] <sup>]</sup> / <sub>]</sub> 23:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
:* I agree, it's far too soon for a ban. Even with the behaviour that has been shown, I find it difficult to believe that he has 'exhausted the community's patience'. ]<small> (]) (])</small> 23:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
::I find the above users' optimism misplaced. He has exhausted the patience of every editor he has come into contact with. (Even the one he nominated for adminship.) But I am no admin, so it is up to the editors that have such authority to take any action. If a ban will not be enacted, then I support an immediate block (as has been requested on ] before, with regard to said user). ] 23:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
:::I am not optimistic, I just don't agree with banning a new editor who has not received so much as a block before. There is a ], and I have not see any diffs that link to mediation, a request for comment, etc. If you look at ] it says that "Users are banned as an '''end result''' of the '''dispute resolution process''', in response to serious cases of user misconduct.", whereas in this case the process hasn't even been initiated. ]<small> (]) (])</small> 23:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
::::I am not too familiar with the '''dispute resolution process''' thank you for pointing it out. However, the process HAS been initiated, the First and Second steps are complete. If further formal steps have to be taken, then could the users involved in this discussion help out? ] 23:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with an idefinate ban, ] and assume ] come to mind, the issue raised about early knowledge of the RFA process needs to be considered in the light of these . I find these comment more disturbing than those of a newbie as they inflammed the situation using general defamatory sweeping statements about admins, yet I look past this as an attempt to be seen as supportive of the editor. I think that if edits by User:CroDome continue to be uncivil then blocks should be applied. ]] 00:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

First of all - I hate ''no'' nation. ] already notified me that GreaterSerbian supporters will try to push me off Misplaced Pages - I can't believe he was right.

Worst of all, '''ZA DOM SPREMNI''' '''''is not fascist'''''. Every Croat knows it. Labeling it as fascist is just like caling the Croat people fascist? Are you going to ban now Maitresse??? --] 00:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
:::Yes, it is fascist: ]. Read. ] 01:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

::Are you not getting it? Your statement "The Greater Serbian supporters will try to push me off Misplaced Pages" do you not realize that that is a huge racist blanket statement? This is what we're talking about here. '''''<font color="darkblue">]</font><font color="lightblue">]</font>''''' 00:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

*'''Endorse''' - based on this users contributions and knowledge of Misplaced Pages policy, I am strongly inclined to believe that this user is a single purpose account/sock puppet used simply for ] and disruption. Perhaps to test the limits of a what an editor can get away with before being blocked/banned? Although this user has not had many contributions, I don't think you can point a single positive contribution, and this user shows absolutely no sign of being able to respect Misplaced Pages policy and be a positive contributor to Misplaced Pages. // ]

* '''Comment''' - I think it will be helpful for other Wikipedians to review this user's previous User Page which was deleted, as well his Request for adminship that was also deleted. Is possible that we can restore them in a temporary subpage so others who did not get a chance to see them can review? // ] 01:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

* '''Reply to Comment''' Agree, you may place it in User:Navou/Sandbox if you like. ] <sup>]</sup> / <sub>]</sub> 01:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
:The unacceptable comments from the user's original Userpage can be found in to their talkpage (following: With regard to the following quotes from your userpage:) as I copied them there to illustrate what was wrong with the comments. ] 01:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

*'''Support block, no opinion on ban.''' Usually the sorts of people we bring up for banning have block logs a mile long -- this account is only a few days old, only has a few edits, and has never been blocked, prior to this discussion; on the other hand, Laughing Man brings up an important point that may rebut that general practice. With that in mind, I do think we should block, ''perhaps'' indefinitely. I can't bring myself to support a ban in this case, but I won't specifically oppose it either. &ndash; <span style="font-family: Garamond">] (])</span> 02:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

*'''Support block''' for now, we can re-evaluate this if that proves to be unsuccessful. <span style="font-family: Tahoma;">] ] | ]</span> 03:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
*I '''support block''' but I am '''strongly opposed to a community ban''' on a four day old account that has never been blocked before. I'm also rather shocked to see a proposal for a community ban before a request for a block. He might end up needing to be community banned, but he also might just need an education instead of having Yuser31415 edit warring over his userpage and threatening him with blocks. I find CroDome's behaviour and comments completely unacceptable but I also don't think the way this guy has been treated has helped the situation at all. ''']''' 09:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
*Can some admin block him then? I don't know for how long, I am not familiar with blocking. His actions up until now certainly warrant ''at least'' one block. ] 09:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
**I've blocked him for a week and I'm happy for that to be tweaked. ''']''' 09:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
*'''Oppose ban'''. Support Sarah Ewart's block, though. Also, per ] support from editors who are actively involved in a dispute with the user in question should be discounted when tallying this or any other community ban decision. For such editors the ethical approach is to comment upon the discussion and disclose any conflict. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 21:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

::Please note; I was unaware at first what ban meant; I though it was a synonym for block. I've changed my status to supporting a block, for a week, which is good, but if it persists, please, please ban him. '''''<font color="darkblue">]</font><font color="lightblue">]</font>''''' 22:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
:::We do our best to help people adapt to site standards before resorting to bans. Let's hope this person becomes a good editor. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 00:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

== Charles Dunbar ==

I would like to contact the author of the piece on Charles Davidson Dunbar of Hamilton. I have some correspondence from William Dunbar, believed to be Charles's father, in some old fishing books.
D. Maley
<email removed by ]] 04:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)> <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (]) 03:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->
:I'm not sure what you mean by the "author of the piece on ]". Misplaced Pages is a ], and because of anybody can edit the article, so there are loads of "authors". That page is in dire need of cleanup, though. I'll clean it up when I get around to it, maybe. However, any help in cleaning up/expanding that page would be great for the encyclopedia. I hope this helps; I don't really understand your comment. Cheers, ]] 04:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
::Here's the for that article. You might contact the editors through their user talk pages or, if you have ] ] information you could add that to the article yourself. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 00:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

== IP user making personal attacks/civilty. ==

What should happen to this ]? He has repeatedly violated ] and ]? He has been blocked for 12 hours. However, he has brought up unnecessary nonsense on the ], as well as other incidents. I was thinking about bringing this up with another admin, but I want to know what the community thought about this matter. Thanks. <b><font color="#6495ED" face="georgia">]</font></b> 06:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
: Try ]. Sounds like an administrative discussion rather than a general community thing. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 00:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

==Community ban request on ]==
{{User|GordonWatts}} is a ] whose single issue is ]. Through his entire time on Misplaced Pages, he has been vexatious, disruptive, argumentative, and intent on pushing his version of events on any all articles connected to Terri Schiavo. Things had stabilized after he went away about a year ago, but he's back with the same act. His latest is to press beyond all reasonable standards for the inclusion of external links to his personal Geocities/AOL Homepage websites, calling the newspapers on par with the ''New York Times'' -- or maybe even better, since he claims to be an authority. Despite universal opposition -- except for the brief resurfacing of an old POV-pushing comrade from the worst of the ] edit wars -- that the links utterly failed ], he persists with disruptive, vexatious, long-winded, barely-connected-to-reality and garishly colored* elaborations. Check out the talk pages for ] and ] and you'll see what I mean.

His cranking out of thousands of words of his self-serving (helping to fill 40-odd pages of archives), garishly colored nonsense -- supported by (almost) no one -- filling up the talk pages is disruptive and distracting. It always has been, it is now, and -- given Gordon's track record of not understanding plain-English explanations to him, his sense of righteousness unencumbered by evidence or outside opinion, and his inability to disengage unless absolutely forced to (and even then merely as a pause before trying a different tactic later on) -- always will be. Enough is enough, and encouraging him is ill-advised. You'll note that even people who are sympathetic to him still get the full-on Gordon Watts loghorrea when contradicting him, which is as disruptive a way of driving off disagreement as I can think of not involving personal threats as I can imagine.

He's been told "no", but still he persists. Enough. He's not going to magically become better, and it's time he was shown the door. --] | ] 13:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

*Not a violation, actually, but ''really really'' annoying.

:: As noted , in a display of similar thinking, I support this. For the record, I have never edited any article connected to the Terri Schiavo case and took a look at the incident because Gordon asked for help on the AN/I board. I see no indicators that this user is anything more than a single issue poster who's presence on the page is to ensure that he can engage in self-promotion, his actions are fundementally not "wikipedian" - they are to promote himself rather than build a better encyclopedia. Having said that, if editors felt this was too harsh, I would also support a limited community ban which restricts him from adding his own <s>newspapers</s> freely-hosted websites and editting Terri Schiavo related articles. --] 13:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
:::I agree with ]. Gordon is essentially only on Misplaced Pages to contribute to Terri Schiavo related articles, and his main interest has been adding his own sites to the articles (which are nearly unanimously considered to not meet ]). A restriction from editing Schiavo case articles should be adequate. <font color="#00688B"><b>]</b></font><small><sup><font color="B22222">]</font></sup></small> 13:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

:As noted , where I thanked others for participating, I have long stopped editing on the Schiavo articles (or any articles for that matter), and have accepted concensus. The few occasional replies to others' posts is not unreasonable; To ban a user for responding to a post to him sounds vindictive. (If you don't like what is posted and don't want me to reply to you, then simply ignore that page and don't post on it. I am not going to start talking to myself -or, if I do, then we can deal with that when, uh, I mean IF, it happens.) To ban a user who has stopped editing on the articles in question and accepted concensus is not necessary -and sounds like revenge for taking a stand. You're move.--] 14:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

:I Support a community ban. First, as a disclosure because of the political nature of his disputes, I have never edited any of the articles related to Terri Schiavo or any of the related sociological or political issues. The issues with Gordon are long term and extreme enough for a community ban. He has repeatedly attempted to inject his point of view into the articles related to Terri Schiavo, but in a back handed, voluminous, and wikilawyering way. Separate from that, he has repeatedly tried to elevate his own status and stature by extreme self promotion. He has an obsession with the issue and with the dead woman, and one could argue that there are conflict of interest issues as well.
:But that is not the crux of the issues with Gordon. He does not understand our Project's policies and guidelines, interprets and bends those he does for his own benefit rather than the benefit of the project or of the community. Nor does he, I believe, have the ability to understand our community norms. I do not believe that his acts are specifically malicious - but the volume and persistence of his acts and ignorance has long ago exhausted the community's patience. <font color=000099>And he ''is'' annoying to an extreme level. </font>
:Multiple times he has said that he is leaving or cutting back his activities, only to not cut back at all or to later return full force.
:Gordon has a talent, for sure, but his talents lie in churning out thousands of words on small issues, and repeating himself ad nauseum and in ignorance of those around him. As he is fond of reminding everybody and their cousin, he has his own websites. Misplaced Pages is not a sounding board for his views and obsessions. Gordon can not be fixed. I know it is extreme, but he needs to go away. --] - '']'' - ] 14:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
::'''''"extreme self promotion...our Project's policies and guidelines..."''''' If you will note, Jeff, this disagreement about ''my'' websites is only a minor issue, with many other links being deleted willy-nilly. I'm not the only one to share that concern: If you note in diff, one of my opponents even admits that '''''"I'm active on other pages, and I'm finding that blogs and personal websites are being ruthlessly removed, with the instruction to find the same information elsewhere, or leave it out."''''' So, you are focusing on someone who had long ago accepted concensus (a waste of time) -and don't focus on the bigger picture, the actual Misplaced Pages project you mention above, where other editors agree that there is a problem with '''''"personal websites are being ruthlessly removed."''''' As long as people post nonsense to me, I have a right to reply; If you don't want me to reply here in talk, then simply don't post to me; Simple as that. You seem to want to egg on the matter -even though I have not only accepted the concensus but also abided by it; You don't see me adding ANY links, those I support -or those I oppose. As a matter of fact, besides not editing on the article pages, I may not even reply to future posts in this thread, so I may just not edit at all. Then, what are you going to? Ban someone who posts an occasional reply to a talk page? ]. Your move.--] 14:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
:::''"So, you are focusing on someone who had long ago accepted concensus"'' What exactly is "long ago" in this statement? It can't have been more than a day or so, because I only stumbled across this issue in the last few days. <font color="#00688B"><b>]</b></font><small><sup><font color="B22222">]</font></sup></small> 14:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
:::In wikipedia parlance, a few days ''is'' a long time, because of the fast pace here. That I had accepted concensus '''before''' your post -and stopped editing on the article page ''before'' your post -and stopped even posting to the talk page -except to post in reply -is the salient point -which shows me that you are asking for something after the fact. If the only problem you perceive is me replying to your posts (since I am not editing the article -or threatening to), then the solution is simple: Just don't post to me, and I can't reply! I would, if I were you, do this. I may not even post a reply to this page -be put on notice: I have a real life -but your question seemed a sincere and good one. NOW, arighty: You all are going to have to take care of wikipedia, because you all won the concensus.--] 14:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
::::a long time ago? is a long time ago? --] 14:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
:::::<font color=0000cc>'''''"a long time ago?"'''''</font> First, I want to answer Frederick's question here, as it seems genuine and seeking the truth: When I said that I had not edited in a long time, I was specifically referring to the article pages. (You're going to have ongoing discussion on the talk pages.)
:::::*The last time I edited the Gov't involvement in Terri Schiavo page was , where I revered based on this logic: ''(rv: #1: I did not "add" my link - I partially reverted, and that was the outcome; #2: I am not adding a news source, but rather advocacy; Address why other "blogs" are allowed and I won't revert you..)''.
:::::*The last time I edited the Public opinion & activism / Terri Schiavo case pg was , where I fixed a spacing typo.
:::::*The last time I edited the main Terri Schiavo page was , because ''(Revert to version 107541828 (11:58, 12 February 2007) because massive deletions of many links were made without having reached proper ] or discussion on talk page.)''
:::::So, yes, it WAS a long time ago that I edited, a good number of days, and I never came anywhere the "3 revert" rules because I wanted to reach the end-result by consensus -not bullying. Was I wrong to refuse to bully and push here?--17:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

* I support an article ban from subjects related to Terry Schiavo and an outright ban on linking his website, enforced if necessary by blacklisting it. Whether Gordon can be a productive editor elsewhere is unproven, let him prove himself, but there is little doubt that his edits to Schiavo articles have been disruptive and vain, and that cannot continue. he evidently has some capacity or self-delusion so I would like to clarify something: while numerous editors have been kind and patient explaining to Gordon why his actions are problematic, it would not matter ''where'' this material is hosted or who added the links, it fails ] by a wide margin. The content itself is the problem, not where it is hosted or who added the links, although they are certainly the problem in terms of user conduct. This is precisely the kind of material we intended to ''exclude'' when ] was written. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 15:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

*I support banning him from pages related to Terry Schiavo, and blacklisting the links as promotional. He seems to be wasting people's time and misusing the talk pages to such an extent that it is interfering with the project. ] <sup>]</sup> 15:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

*The applicable guideline is ]. Being annoying is just that - annoying, but I don't think there's any malice or ill motive in his actions. He just seems very dedicated to asserting that Terri Schiavo was murdered by Democrats and euthanasia is evil. It's not even a matter of admitting when he's wrong, as he will do so, but continue to press the case in a different way, failing to learn anything. I am in a dilemma. I do not want a ban at this point for Gordon, but I worry about what else can be done. I have tried reasoning with him on more than one occasion, and it has a short-term effect at best. A warning to knockit off won't work, as he's had those before, and a ban from editing Schiavo and related articles would be pointless, as he only edits Schiavo and related articles (n.b. - nothing wrong with a narrow focus - many very fine editors only edit one or a few articles). Being annoying and writing long messages on talk pages is his sole crime. He hasn't edit warred (much) over the links, just complained volubly on the talk page about their removal. Annoying: yes, disruptive: a little, but malicious: no. If he had just edit warred, he'd have got a 24 hour block, but because he spoke up (albeit at great length, over and over) he's being community banned? I don't like that. Suggest a self-imposed break, and if Gordon doesn't learn when he returns, then we're looking at a ban. But there's been no warnings about this, and so I '''cannot support a ban'''. ]&nbsp;] 15:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

*If all of Gordon Watts's claims on yesterday's edit which Frederick day listed above are true, then he is in violation of ]. ] 17:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

* I '''cannot support a ban''', per Proto. &ndash;''''']'''''&nbsp;<sup>(] • ])</sup> 20:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

*I'm not personally familiar with the history here, but if an editor has been around a long time and still not found a way to make himself useful, and if he's causing harm to the project (even somewhat minor harm), simple cost/benefit analysis suggests that we'd be better off without him, right? Since his goals are apparently not compatible with the goals of Misplaced Pages, the solution seems obvious. Let him do his soapboxing on his own website, it's not useful here. ] ] 20:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I '''strongly oppose''' a ban, per Proto. I've seen a lot of Gordon on Misplaced Pages, and while I often wish he would act differently, a lot of people who were irritated by him have behaved disgracefully towards him, and with impunity. I won't bother to search for diffs, as this is not an RfC or an RfArb, but, if people wish to verify any particular incidence, I'm sure I could look them up. was the second message ever posted on Gordon's talk page (other than by Gordon himself). If that how we are supposed to treat newcomers? Duckecho wrote some rather nasty stuff making fun of Gordon on his own userpage, and then went to the Terri Schiavo talk page to invite editors to come along and look at it. Duckecho also, at one stage, moved all of Gordon's posts on the Terri Schiavo talk page away from where they had been posted down to the bottom of the page with an edit summary "Creating a sandbox for the kids to play in while the adults work on the article", and reverted me twice when I undid it on the grounds that attacking another editor's dignity does not help Misplaced Pages. On one occasion, when Gordon left a message at Calton's talk page, which Calton may well have found irritating, but which was ''not'' a personal attack, Calton deleted it with the edit summary "reverting not-very-bright troll". When Gordon, at the time of his unsuccessful RfA, kept telling everyone that he had never been blocked, Carnildo blocked him for one second, entering as the reason that Gordon kept pointing to his clean block log. Even recently, when Gordon called Calton "Cal" (which I'm sure was not intended to give offence, as lots of editors use abbreviations of names) , and Calton replied with something like "Only my friends get to call me Cal, Gordy-boy." I just see example after example of people taking away the dignity of someone who gets on their nerves.

I believe that the the addition of Gordon's links would be contrary to ], ], and ], regardless of their merit. But he isn't edit warring over it; he's just posting extremely long rebuttals to everyone who disagrees with him. That's hardly something you ban someone for, expecially if you take into account that he has been treated extremely rudely by other users, and has never shown himself to be malicious. If you don't like his long replies, then don't respond. Gordon does not edit war &mdash; certainly not more than his opponents. He never vandalizes. He annoys people by telling them (in great detail) why they're wrong and he's right. In response to Friday's post about not having found a way to make himself useful, Gordon has often been very helpful to the article, correcting spelling errors, improving format, taking a photo of Terri Schiavo's grave, so as to reduce the number of Fair Use images. As Proto says, he's not malicious. I very much commend Proto for his efforts at fairness, both here, and in a recent message on Gordon's talk page. I strongly recommend to Calton that ''before'' trying things like community bans, he try to place more importance on the dignity of users with whom he disagrees. I strongly disagree with the idea that we don't have to treat other users with respect if we find them disruptive. Calton does valuable work here, and I've often noticed it, but some indication of kindness towards users who annoy him would make his work more valuable. ]] 00:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

:I also '''strongly oppose a ban''' per Proto. Gordon AND Calton could both act better, nothing Gordon has done requires a Community Ban. - ] <sup>(] - ])</sup> 00:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

:''Duckecho wrote some rather nasty stuff making fun of Gordon on his own userpage''

::Wrong. Duckecho ]-- one he still maintains -- of being a major participant in the legal shenangins surrounding the Terri Schiavo case, Gordon frequently bragging about he "did better than Jeb Bush" and even trying to use that as a wedge in his most recent crusade. It's nasty in the sense that a dash of cold water is nasty.

:''But he isn't edit warring over it...''

::Yes he has, as a glance at the edit history would show, just not to the point of hitting the 3RR limit.

:''...he's just posting extremely long rebuttals to everyone who disagrees with him. That's hardly something you ban someone for...''

::it is, given its extreme disruption and its intent of wearing down anyone who disagrees with him. It's been done before: ], ], ], and a few others whose names I can't recall come to mind.

:''As Proto says, he's not malicious.''

::Immaterial. He's disruptive and shown himself to be incapable of learning.

:''when Gordon left a message at Calton's talk page, which Calton may well have found irritating, but which was ''not'' a personal attack, Calton deleted it with the edit summary "reverting not-very-bright troll".''

::Reaching back 16 months for "evidence" is really stretching, don't you think? And the edit summary could have been better phrased but was nonetheless accurate: Gordon WAS trolling, part of a long series of condescending messages peppering my page (some edit summaries: ''What's the matter, Calton: Can't stand the criticism of fellow-editors?'' and ''If you need forgiveness on this or other matters from me, I will grant it''.

::Funny, though, how your extensive research missed Gordon's attempt at an RFC against me at the same time as the above for "excessive reverting": he left messages on the pages of two editors with whom I'd had disgreements -- including one who'd just been banned by ArbCom, Gordon leaving his message just below the ArbCom notification -- then came immediately to my Talk page claiming that he and four other editors (note the difference in numbers) had gotten together to file an RFC. Note that he hadn't even bothered waiting for any replies before making his claim that "two definitely are" . The false sincerity of the message text (''Please note that I don't act in revenge, but in prevention, the best medicine, an ounce of which is worth a pound of cure -and I'm courteous and polite to give you a heads up, because you deserve a chance to run while you have a chance. I would expect no less from my own honorable adversaries'') was particularly choice. Unctuous smarm is no better than active hostility.

:''Gordon has often been very helpful to the article, correcting spelling errors, improving format, taking a photo of Terri Schiavo's grave, so as to reduce the number of Fair Use images''

::Gordon is not uniquely or even especially valuable in that context -- a ''machine'' can correct spelling errors -- and given his extreme ] surrounding the Terri Schiavo articles, a net drag, given that he requires constant supervision -- which he contests at every turn, sucking up time and energy.

::Whether he's a nice guy or an evil, mustache-twirling villian is completely irrelevant as to the issue of whether he's disruptive: "sincere" disruption is no different from "malicious" disruption, no matter how many excuses you make for it. --] | ] 01:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

:::I don't think any of the above from ] is particularly helpful or necessary to this discussion. Most of the comments made by "Duckecho" would be considered hearsay and unless said by "Duckecho" here, should be striken from the record. - ] <sup>(] - ])</sup> 01:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

::::This isn't a court of law, Mr. Dershowitz. --] | ] 07:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
:::No it's not, but you sure as hell are acting like it is. A court that is run by Calton and Calton alone where Calton should get what he wants, when he wants, and be damned the rules and people he has to run over to get it in the process. - ] <sup>(] - ])</sup> 15:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

* '''Oppose.''' Concur in part, and dissent in part, from Musical Linguist above: I agree that ferocity of Calton's attacks on Gordon Watts are excessive and very ] for an experienced editor who wants to claim victim status. The two of them seem to have inexhaustible time to go and back and forth since Calton commenced this ] on 9 February, 2007. ''Nevertheless'', Gordon Watts, the ], is part of the story of the government involvement in the Terri Schiavo case, unless one wishes to fully ]. Without much effort I found these by narrowing a Google search to ''.gov'' and and there is likely more in .com and .org, subtracting out his personal web site. Those petitions have already been memorialized in this Schiavo resource site and should be referenced in our article as well. What Gordon Watts, the Misplaced Pages editor, appears to lack is the ability to ] to Calton as well as some ] skills. No ban is called for. I agree with all of the others who are calling for a little more self-restraint by the warriors. ] 01:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
:''Nevertheless, Gordon Watts, the ], is part of the story of the government involvement in the Terri Schiavo case, unless one wishes to fully ].'' Utterly irrelevant spin, but not even wrong: readers are invited to peruse ]. --] | ] 01:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
::Shouting is not necessary and let Duckecho know that he can come here and comment on this discussion. Please, though, let's keep this discussion on track. - ] <sup>(] - ])</sup> 01:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
:::No one is shouting, Duckecho isn't here but the debunking is easily read by anyone, the discussion IS on track, and you should stop with the wikistalking, already. --] | ] 02:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
::Not Wikistalking, just defending a friend. - ] <sup>(] - ])</sup> 02:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
:::Reality varies: you never even heard of the guy until you enlisted his help this week. --] | ] 07:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
::Yeah, cause he was being harrassed by you. I just gave him a simple which preceded the request for this community ban. - ] <sup>(] - ])</sup> 15:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
* '''Oppose.'''Per Musical Linguist and Proto.] 02:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
*I '''Oppose''' a community ban. I read through ] and I think Gordon has exhausted Calton's patience, but I don't think he has yet exhausted the community's patience. I agree that Gordon is very trying, annoying and he seems to have a very warped sense of self-importance. However, I don't see anything that I feel justifies a community ban. He has only been blocked twice: once on 19 September 2005 for one second for "pointing to his clean block log as a reason why he should be made an admin". The second block was for 12 hours on 02:16, 25 September 2005 for "violation of agreement at Talk:Terri Schiavo". In the last 17 months, Gordon has not been blocked at all. before supporting a community ban, I would rather see more blocks of increasing lengths used where necessary. A community ban should be a last resort. Gordon has a clear conflict of interest with regard to all the Schiavo articles and his links are clearly inapprorpriate, but he has agreed not to edit the Schiavo articles further.
:Also, Calton needs to stop being antagonistic, provocative, bullying and rude towards Gordon. I don't know if there's some ruling (from anyone other than Calton) that says that Gordon is not allowed to comment on the relevant article's talk pages, but if there is, I couldn't find it. All I could find was Calton repeatedly declaring that "Gordon is not free to rebut" matters discussed on the ''article's talk page''. This is bullying. Gordon has already agreed not to edit the articles, if Calton wants him also restricted from responding on the talk page, he needs to get an appropriate injunction, rather than declaring it as a personal decree. Gordon's behaviour is disruptive and annoying, but I think a community ban at the present time is premature. ''']''' 07:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
::'''''"Gordon has already agreed not to edit the articles"''''' Well, let me clarify: I promised that I had not edited the main article pages for a good while, several days; I was making a promise about the past, not the future; also, please see my reply to Frederick above, where I made another promise about the past (it's easier to promise about the past, since it can't be changed) -I gave my word and promised I came nowhere near the 3-revert rule. I do not recall promising to not ever edit on the Schiavo pages; In fact, many people stick to their area of expertise, and while I edit a little everywhere, I am expert in only a few issues. I did strongly imply (if not promise) to not edit for a short while to give the issue time to cool off- and I also strongly implied (if not promised) to try accept consensus and not irritate or edit war with my global neighbours -and to be more flexible. Indeed, I may be guilty to being too ], and we all get ticked at times, but if I am guilty of spending lots of talk page space over something (hopefully to educate and seek consensus), then Calton is also guilty of the same thing: He posts long, irritating posts. Indeed, even as we speak, as pointed out by OrangeMonster, Calton has an RfC against him: ] -and lots of people agree Calton has need for improvement. Not only is his behaviour bad, but also, his editing style is bad; He cuts too many things out of Misplaced Pages, so we can't cite our sources, and this will be a problem whether or not I regularly edit here. I already cited that even , who disagreed with me on my page being used as a reference, concedes that OK, while no one seems to agree that my newspaper should be a references, I'll AGREE with you that it may not be totally reliable (and by extension, so also, some smaller papers and blogs). BUT, these smaller news sources ARE partly reliable -hey! We don't all just write lies all the time, but that's what is implied by "not reliable." I'll offer a compromise here: Why don't we consider revising our application of the policy to allow for these smaller papers to be included -so long as they have supporting sources, that is, instead of citing just to, say, my paper, we can cite to 2 or 3 smaller blogs; In fact, even when using the NY Times as a source, we ought to have a "supporting" source, just to make sure we cite our sources.--] 17:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
:::Gordon, you're not helping yourself '''at all'''. Making promises about the pass is ridiculous. You have a conflict of interest and should not be editing '''any''' of those pages. Your links are completely unacceptable for the articles. You either need to accept these things or you're going to have to accept a community ban. ''']''' 17:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
::::I have accepted the consensus and not threatened to violate it; however, what if editor is right in her claims that we are not citing our sources? Also, I am not advocating specifically for "my" pages. That my pages are one of many that are arbitrarily excluded no less makes my point a valid one; So, please understand that I am NOT seeking to promote my websites, but if smaller news papers ARE indeed partly reliable but arbitrarily excluded, then I am right to speak up on that general issue, and those would bring up "my" newspapers are conflating (confusing) the point and side-stepping the issue. Indeed, if all I'm guilty of is advocating a change in policy (note that I've accepted the consensus on the issue of links to my page), then this is not a crime; it is something all should do: Advocate for change where change is necessary. You are confusing my advocacy of my links with my advocacy of the bigger issues of our policy. I am doing the latter, not the former--] 18:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
::::Furthermore, if I am right that our policy needs to be changed, then my advocacy of this is NOT a conflict of interest issue: I am not specifically advocating in this issue for inclusion of my links; That I did the latter in the past does not somehow negate this larger issue. I certainly don't seek a ban against Calton in his RfC, but he has violated actual and real rules, and is guilty of not only rudeness but also (if I am right about how we don't cite our sources) he would be guilty of cutting up articles and bad editing, even if he were polite. Even though I've commented that his behaviour is inappropriate and needs to be dealt with, '''I'm not''' seeking his ban, but if ''you'' seek a ban, he would be more worthy of one than would I. Did you see his RfC? One more thing: Saying that a person can't edit on a page where he has expert or first-hand knowledge because of a conflict of interest would effectively stop all doctors from editing medical articles and stop all biologists from editing biology articles, and we'd lost a lot of our expertise; Is that what you want? --] 18:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

::The use of the adverb "repeatedly" is false or at least wildly misleading and the context misrepresented: this was in response to his continuing to flog the dead horse of inserting his personal external links after continually being told that they weren't going in, period. I told him that if he continued, I'd request the ban. He continued, I requested.
::''if Calton wants him also restricted from responding on the talk page, he needs to get an appropriate injunction'' You're looking at that request: what '''else''' did you think this whole thread was about? Instead, we get people (who frankly ought to know better) enabling his dysfunctional behavior and feeding his overweening sense of self-worth instead, and at least annoying wikistalker hopping on the bandwagon hoping to recruit supporters.
::My user page says at the top "It's clean-up duty, mopping up after the dishonest, incompetent, and fanatical." Gordon is all three, in spades, and whatever limited value he has -- other than a single-minded devotion to one subject (or, more precisely, one single view of a single subject) -- is far outweighed by his negatives. This place is not reform school or personal therapy, it's an encyclopedia, and I can't imagine what possible benefit there is in attempting a salvage job on someone who refuses to be salvaged. Between his previous and current antics at ], at attempting to bully his way into making it a ], and his world-class wikilawyering at his spectacularly unsuccessful ] (including an attempt at an end run by appealing to Jimbo to just ''give'' him the job, votes be damned), I'm trying to imagine HOW anyone thinks he's going to suddenly turn into a good contributor. --] | ] 07:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
:::''The use of the adverb "repeatedly" is false or at least wildly misleading and the context misrepresented''. I looked quickly at ] and I see at least three times you insisted that Gordon was not free to rebut:
:::*"No more arguments, no more rationalizations, no more long-winded, disruptive, self-serving rebuttals..." --Calton | Talk 14:49, 15 February 2007
:::*"''Gordon's free to rebut.'' No, he's not..." .-Calton | Talk 22:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
:::*"''Gordon is free to rebut.'' No, he isn't: hundreds and thousands of words of his self-serving nonsense..." -Calton | Talk 00:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
:::While the first one was just your opening warning to Gordon that you would request a community ban if he continued with that behaviour, the other two were replies to ] and ] who disagreed with your edict. At least three is more than once and therefore "repeated". I don't think that is false or "wildly misleading."
:::''You're looking at that request: what else did you think this whole thread was about? '' That's exactly my point, Calton: you declared editing restrictions '''before''' you even brought it to the community.
:::''Instead, we get people (who frankly ought to know better) enabling his dysfunctional behavior and feeding his overweening sense of self-worth instead, and at least annoying wikistalker hopping on the bandwagon hoping to recruit supporters.'' I don't know who the stalker is or whether that is a general comment or if it's directed specifically at me, but what you've actually got is several people responding to your request and telling you that they don't think a community ban is appropriate ''yet''. I'd be willing to support a community ban if other editors cut antagonising him AND there was a recent record of blocks. Is his behaviour disruptive enough to warrant a block? If it is, have him blocked a few times and see if that has any impact. If it isn't disruptive enough to warrant a block, how on earth can it warrant a ban? I don't think this is unreasonable, nor do I think that telling you your attitude and behaviour is unhelpful and Gordon that his attitude and behaviour is "very trying, annoying..." and "disruptive" and warning him that he is headed for a community ban is "enabling his dysfunctional behavior and feeding his overweening sense of self-worth." Also, I thought you posting on ] the link to that blog that ridiculed Gordon was pretty damn nasty. ''']''' 12:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

==Community discussion on ]==

Formerly ], users sole contributions are edit warring on 9-11 conspiracy theories, edit warring on political arguments, and following editors he disagrees with to other artcles with the express intent of reverting them repeatedly without discussion. ] - ] 20:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Major Work:
*''']''' - Extensive sourcing of article.
*''']''' - Extensive copy editing of content.
*''']''' - Create article. Sourced it.
*''']''' - Add Discography. Created articles for all albums.
*''']''' - Convert to cite format. Created sections, basic copy editing.
*''']''' - Created article, heavily sourced.
*''']''' - Recreated more detailed article and fully sourced.
*'''] (PAGN)''' - Created article and heavily sourced it
*''']''' - Created article and sourced it appropriatly.
*''']''' - Cleanup, wikify and infobox details.
*''']''' - Extensive sourcing to ''Factions'' section to remove "sources needed" tag.

Album Articles:
*''']''' by ] & ]
*''']''' by ]
*''']''' by ] & ]
*''']''' by ] & ]
*''']''' by ]
*''']''' by ]
*''']''' by ]
*''']''' by ]

Under ]
*''']''' - Rework of contents for clarity, reduced size of overview.
*''']''' - Added large portion regarding OEF-P and OEF-HOA. Trimmed OEF-A contents down.
*''']''' - Created article, currently a stub. Searching for more information.
*''']''' - Added information on Operation Smiles, humanitarian work.
*''']''' - Reworked center portion to create a cohesive linear timeline. Layout work, copy editing.
*''']''' - Created article, currently a stub, looking for more information.
*''']''' - Created article, currently needs more.
*''']''' - Considerable work with co-editor ]. Added Theatres of Operations + Objectives & Strategies.
*''']''' - Created article on prominant graffiti artist John "Crash" Matos.
*''']''' - Extensive reworking of the article, expansion from stub to complete article + sources.
*''']''' - Extensive cleanup and sourcing of article, removed copyvio.

In other words stop lying. --]<s>]</s> 20:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

For those concerned, this is what Hipocrite is complainig about:
*Hipocrite added fact tag:
*I added citation:
I think he added the tag cause he thought a source couldnt be found, I now see on the talk page he doesnt like Joseph Newcomer. But as you can see, providing sources is much of what I do. --]<s>]</s> 20:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
::What's the point of this thread? Head over to ] if you want a "community discussion" of a particular user. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 00:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

== Essay vs. Soapboxing ==

Where does one end and where does the other begin. If an essay is created, then it is open to editors to change by consensus, but how far can it change? Can consensus change an essay into something opposing it's original position? If an essay is just one person's point of view and many other disagree then should that essay stand?

I know several of you know exactly which essay I have in mind, however, please lets keep this general, because my interest in this topic goes beyond any one essay. This is something I think needs to be more clearly spelled out. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 16:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

:It's an interesting question. I've noticed that essays in the Misplaced Pages space tend to retain their original points of view, most of the time (and yes, this is one time when we are not strictly NPOV, by consensus) -- however, they are indeed open to "merciless editing." Essays in the user space are generally safe from this. An essay in the Misplaced Pages space is not actually protected by any policy I know from being changed completely from its original intent--it just doesn't happen that way most of the time. ''Most'' of the time. Perhaps we've found an exception. ] ] 16:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

::"Essays in the user space are generally safe from this.", I must disagree, people don't own their userspace, and an essay in that space should be treated as common property just as much as any other place, unless I am very wrong. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 18:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 19:45, 3 June 2022

This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference.
Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump. 		Shortcut
Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles,
content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    Noticeboard archives
    Administrators' (archives, search)
    349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358
    359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368
    Incidents (archives, search)
    1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165
    1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175
    Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
    472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481
    482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491
    Arbitration enforcement (archives)
    328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337
    338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347
    Community sanction archives (search)
    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
    11 12 13 14
    Other links

    This was the community sanction noticeboard. This forum was previously used for the discussion of community bans, prior to consensus at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard (second nomination) that another venue would be better.

    Though the history is retained so that previous cases may be referenced, new issues should be raised at Administrators' noticeboard (for new ban discussions or other long discussions) or Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (for more specific incidents relating to previous sanctions).

    Categories: