Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:52, 6 April 2009

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

• For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
• To request review of an administrator's action or other use of advanced permissions, use Misplaced Pages:Administrative action review
• If you are new, try the Teahouse instead.
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Misplaced Pages:Requests for oversight.
• For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.
• Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.
• Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• If you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, use {{RfC closure review}}

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

Speedy deleting where there is no template - forbidden?

Here I've been accused of G4 speedying an article after the template was removed (the article's recreator thinks I must have seen a non-existent edit conflict). That's not what happened, when I initiated the delete it had the tag, which was removed at virtually the same time. But isn't that irrelevant? Where does it say that an article must be tagged for it to be deleted if it meets the criteria for speedy delete? I know that I have a few times tagged articles when I wasn't convinced, and I don't recall having speedied any untagged articles, but if I came across a page that was a blatant attack page, clear gibberish (an oxymoron I guess, sorry), am I really supposed to tag it and let it stay until another Admin finds it? That's not my understanding of the guidelines. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 07:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I speedy delete untagged pages all the time. It makes no sense to tag a page that says something like "X is a sad loser" when you can instantly delete it. Of course, when there is some doubt, tagging is better. Fram (talk) 07:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I looked into this when I first became and admin, and there's no requirement to first tag articles which meet the speedy deletion criteria. I also regularly speedy delete articles without tagging them - my understanding is that's what the speedy deletion criteria are for. Nick-D (talk) 07:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, Tagging is for instances where you can't delete or you want a second pair of eyes. Pages meeting a speedy criterion can be deleted at any time. -- lucasbfr 08:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

From Misplaced Pages:Deletion_policy#Speedy deletion: Administrators can delete such pages on sight, even if contested as below. Ruslik (talk) 08:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Tags are for non-admins to request admin action. (or for admins to request a second pair of eyes, like ruslik says) --Enric Naval (talk) 08:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. That's always been my understanding, but I was starting to think maybe I'd misunderstood it. Dougweller (talk) 09:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I never tag- I either delete outright, or, if I'm not sure, I go for AfD/prodding. J Milburn (talk) 19:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I almost always tag, and almost never delete on sight. (what I will do is change an existing tag to a more appropriate reason, & then delete.) I would like to think I'm perfect, of course, but I've learned otherwise. If I'm 95% right that's not good enough, at least by my standards of dealing with newcomers. I'd in fact urge that single-handed deletes for most reasons be flatly forbidden. That people are defending this practice here gives reason to renew that proposal, and I shall. DGG (talk) 15:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm more deletionist than DGG, but like him I often tag rather than going for a straight immediate deletion, to get a second set of eyes. The most glaring exceptions are the shamelessly spammy, and the obvious vandalism or attack page. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

and I must admit in turn that when i see such garbage that I get really impatient, i have been known to just go ahead. OM and I, in fact, seem to have have acquired the habit of reviewing each other. DGG (talk) 01:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the link you will see that it is a hotly contested AfD. Unomi (talk) 18:42, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The only ones I delete on sight are obvious attack pages ("Joe is a loser and ugly") or excruciatingly blatant A7's ("Jenna is a pretty girl at our school and I hope she likes me"). The rest can always benefit from a second pair of eyes, if only because when an editor comes back to complain we can say it wasn't a unilateral decision.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

This is about my approach. If it's obvious garbage, I nuke it; if it's something where I'm hesitant, I'll always tag it and get someone else to look at it that way. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:03, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Sensitive IP's - Adding DoD addresses

Just curious: Do you think we should try to contact DISA about getting DoD IP's on the list? Aeon1006's situation with autoblocks came to mind. Glacier Wolf 02:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Somehow I don't think DOD will give us a list of their IP addresses to publicize. If I were their CIO, I'd fire anybody who did that. Jehochman 06:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Are the addresses actually sensitive? The House and Senate addresses are on there because some of the users of those addresses might raise a stink if they find themselves blocked. --Carnildo (talk) 08:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I have often wondered about that; Ooooh, let's make sure that the staff employed by the people voted by the public to serve them are not inconvenienced because they are spending tax dollars on vandalising a website... I should have thought that giving the Washington Post and others a newsfeed of every edit from House of Representatives or Senate ip addresses would ensure that only good edits ever came from those sources. Same thing in the UK - put all edits from the Houses of Parliament ip addresses on a live feed to Fleet Street. I suggest that would end any likelihood of vandalism, POV editing, or misrepresentation from such institutions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The point is not that you can't block these ranges, it's just that you have to inform the Foundation if you do block them. Happy‑melon 20:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

What is sensitive about Quatar? By that logic, we'd have to notify the Foundation every time we blocked any IP, as they're all in a country. Dendodge _T\ 19:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

It's because blocking those two IPs means you block the entire nation of Qatar from editing here. —kurykh 19:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, there's only 2 IPs there? My mind put in an imaginary ndash and I saw it as a range. Makes sense now. Dendodge _T\ 19:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Back to the original topic: if they'll actually give you the IP's, go ahead... Calvin 1998  19:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• Just a note. You don't have to contact DISA about getting the addresses. They show up in WHOIS when you lookup an IP that is DOD registered. Note that DOD policy does permit some personal use of the network. This is a contribution history for a DOD ip. Note that not all the edits are bad. NonvocalScream (talk) 05:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Deceased actors and their characters: Andy Hallett and Lorne (Angel)

A series of IPs have been reverting me to add "the late" to the Lorne (Angel) article indicate that Andy Hallett has died. I do not see the point in adding "the late" to a fictional character bio: info that the actor has died is contained in the actor's article, and is pretty much irrelevent to the character.

Yet I see, based on an anecdotal and not particularly scientific poll, that we're pretty much inconsistent in how we deal with this. Actually, we are consistent: actors who've died recently or are associated with movements that have fandoms tend to be referred to as "the late" in their signature character articles: Examples G'Kar, Stephen Franklin, Allen Francis Doyle.

Older characters, or actors who've died before Misplaced Pages, seem to not get the appellation: Charlton Heston as Moses, Lorne Green as Adama

Nor are tables of actors generally updated when cast members die: Carlin and Newman in Cars aren't updated in the table, but their deaths are discussed (appropriately,IMHO) as impacting the sequel.

Unimportant characters don't seem to get the treatment: Sam Kinnison in Back to School,

Musicians don't get tagged as "the late" in the articles of films that feature them: John Bonham, John Lennon

• Has this been brought up and decided before?
• If not, what do folks think? Should this go to RfC, or is there a principle or existing decision involved which makes that moot? Jclemens (talk) 16:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Not sure this is really a Admin Noticeboard issue, but no, there isn't any reason for "the late" to be added to fictional character pages. They are portrayed by the actor, or they were; I had similar issues with Ricardo Montalban on Khan Noonien Singh. Just revert it, they'll stop after a while. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs 16:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I've always taken it that fictional characters never die; Sherlock Holmes, for example, was presumed dead at the Reichenbach Falls but was resurrected due to popular demand; although it was clear that he lived in Victorian times, it's pure nonsense to describe him as "deceased", because he never existed in the first place. It's even more bollocks to describe a character as "deceased" simply because the actor who played him/her has died; that's just a simple confusion between the fictional universe and the real world. --Rodhullandemu 23:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

That's a dangerous generalization. I think it's safe to assume Joe Gillis didn't fake his death & could someday reveal himself in a sequel. -- llywrch (talk) 07:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, while I haven't looked into it, I would assume that the OP meant that editors were changing it to say that the fictional character was played by "the late" Andy Hallett. Anyway. Having run across an IP editor adding "the late" in front of the name of a deceased person recently, I looked through the MOS, and couldn't find anything on it. I would have though that "the late" was not a very encyclopedic-toned expression period, for actors, authors, or even zookeepers, especially on a wiki, where there's decent odds that there's a link to that person, which would of course indicate that they are deceased. That, and where does one stop? (Yes, it's a "slippery slope" argument, but still.) Just my (non-admin) $0.02. umrguy42 02:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

IU don;t think the question is whether to say that a fictional character has died, in that or in another fiction. If he clearly does, it's certainly relevant to the discussion of the character's role in the action. If it's left open, it's all the more discussable. The question is whether to add the information about the actor to all articles or mentions about characters whom the actor played. I think doing so is ridiculous. It's like changing every mention of a political figure when he dies. Misplaced Pages needs upkeep, and we should concentrate on things that really need it, such as the articles on the actors themselves. DGG (talk) 01:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Repeated Copyright fraud

User:Universal Hero has uploaded a number of images that he claims to own the copyright of, however this appears not to be the case.

Examples.

• File:Ajithaegan.jpg appears here before being loaded to wikipedia.
• File:Shriya_Saran.jpg this appears to be taken by the same photographer as this copyrighted image.
• the now deleted Image:AVMstudios.jpg was a copyright violation from here , again he claimed ownership of this image. I warned regarding this at the time , the discussion can be seen here User_talk:GameKeeper/Archive_1#Apologies . This was left in the state of either he was lying or another user was lying (as can be seen in the linked talk). I did not persue the matter further as I thought the problem had been removed, the image was gone.

The above images should be deleted, and I can request that via the normal process. What concerns me is that some of this user's uploaded images have now moved to commons, making them harder to track down , secondly it is difficult to locate the original to prove copyright fraud. I can watch this users uploads and check them but some will slip through my net and I do take breaks from wikipedia, if this is the same user who was banned for sockpuppetry previously (see below) he knows how to creat sockpuppets to evade this if he desired.

Otherwise this user makes a huge contribution to the Tamil cinema articles of wikipedia, the only problem I have is this apparent copyright fraud.

For background info:-

I strongly suspect this user is the returned User:Prin/User:Prince Godfather and have been involved in 2 Sockpuppet reports against him. Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Universal Hero & Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Universal Hero/Archive. The original user was banned for copyright fraud related incidents. I notived these new copyvios due to checking his images again because of the second case.

GameKeeper (talk) 18:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

More evidence is needed, in my opinion. Universal Hero's upload log shows only two images uploaded so far in 2009. Neither of these has an obvious problem. From his Talk page, one gets the impression that he could have had copyright difficulties in the past. But he does have 18,000 edits and has worked on a lot of articles, so the volume of his work may expose him to more borderline situations. The upload log of User:Prin (who is blocked since 2006) shows many nonsensical uploads, so he seems to be a horse of a different color. The two sock cases listed above closed with no action against Universal Hero, the last case only yesterday. EdJohnston (talk) 16:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

There is evidence of multiple cases of copyright fraud. I linked the sockpuppetry cases because I wanted to fully disclose my relationship with this user, sockpuppetry is just an internal rule, copyright fraud can have external legal consequences.

The issue I am raising is the copyright fraud, there are 3 clear cases of copyright fraud above and the user's uploads probably contain more. And the fraud continues, In my chat after I raised this case Universal Hero STILL claims copyright to File:Shriya_Saran.jpg despite the evidence I presented, claiming to have personnally taken the photo at an event, but this is not true. I did a bit more checking File:Shriya_Saran.jpg is not from the event as claimed. Here it is from a blog predating the wikipedia upload and was not from the event as started in the file description. Here is the image, here is the context (4th image down). Some of the uploads don't appear in the upload log because they have been moved to commons (as public domain!). I am asking here because I don't know how to proceed, should I track down and check all of this user's uploaded images? Some will not have such easily locatable evidence of fraud. I don't know what the solution is to suggest one, I was hoping that similar issues would have been succesfully dealt with here before. GameKeeper (talk) 00:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Um, isn't File:Shriya_Saran.jpg at Commons? So, provide your information there (probably at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Shriya Saran.jpg which needs to be created and go on. We don't deal with Commons here. The image wasn't even edited here by him. Second, what here clarifies anything? You keep saying it was copyright fraud, he asks why you keep bothering him, and that he took the picture, what evidence do you have exactly? List the image at FfD if it's here, list it at Commons deletion if you want. If you want to, try Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. They may be more familiar with this sort of thing. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Universal Hero seems to have taken this image straight from tamilmegatube.com. In two instances, he admits here and here to have taken a image from a fan blog. In another instance, he initially claims that the image was taken from a official website of the film. Later, he claims to have taken the image from chennai365.com. And here, he admits to have taken the image from photobucket.com. Anwar (talk) 19:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

There are now 1,077 pages categorised as Tamil film with images similarly uploaded from blogs and websites carrying unverifiable licence information.Anwar (talk) 20:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

No evidence of permission from concerned producers of these 8 forthcoming films in particular. I have tagged 8 such images (which he removed) last week and retagged them again now. Is it acceptable to do a Google Search and download a movie poster from a website for reupload back onto Misplaced Pages?Anwar (talk) 19:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

None of the images seems to be copyright violation, Please clarify. one image is referenced to a different image! So "Repeated Copyright fraud" is a misleading and inappropriate title for this section.

As for the accounts, these are old accounts used two years ago. Back in time when he was reported, no evidence was found he was a sockpuppet and was cleared of the accusations. This time someone requested an odd renewed check on these two-year accounts and he again went out clear. Can't see why exactly this is being done. Did I say something wrong? Shahid • 20:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Users Emptymountains and Truthbody

Could somebody please review the edits of these two users? For many months now they are consistently doing nothing else then spamming articles with books from Geshe Kelsang Gyatso (Tharpa publications) and manipulating all articles related to the Shugden-controversy, in order to advertise the their teacher who founded the "New Kadampa Tradition". They remove any critical notes on this teacher in a continuous stream of small edits, so that in the end, virtually all critical notes vanish. Especially the article on Shugden is their main battleground, and many other editors have simply given up on this article because everything is 'manipulated away' by mainly these two users. Kind regards rudy (talk) 00:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Diffs of the disruptive editing would be very helpful.  iMatthew :  Chat  01:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Matthew, basically, ALL their edits in Misplaced Pages are related to their 'mission'. Problem is that the issue is somewhat obscure and hard to explain to someone not involved in Tibetan Buddhism. In a nutshell, they are part of a cult within Tibetan Buddhism under the guidance of their teacher Kelsang Gyatso who founded the 'New Kadampa Tradition' (NKT). There is a dispute with the general Tibetan Buddhist community regarding the practice of a ghost/deity called Shugden. Following this controversy, Kelsang Gyatso was expelled from his monastery etc., and you can find refenrences to this for example in the website of the Tibetan Goverment in Exile at The Tibetan Administration on Controversy Surrounding Dorjee Shugden Practice

In the mean time, the NKT has been expanding in the west quite quickly, often with less then proper means so to speak. Anyway, many of their followers believe that one of the monst important things in life is the worship of the Shugden deity/ghost, and they use all means to convince others that their practice is very mportant. For years, this has led to endless edit-wars in pages like the page on shugden itself, but also because members try to manipulate information on the Misplaced Pages to introduce their 'plight' on every page that is even slightly related to a subject on (Tibetan) Buddhism. They do this systematically by more or less 'legal' means of spamming book references of their teacher (Tharpa publications), promoting the pages of people who are involved in the practice (like the previous Trijang Rinpoche, trying to manipulate pages of opponents (like the Dalai Lama), or even the pages where they are quoted (a recent example, the page on bodhisattva. They consistently cover up their edits by following up with one or more minor edits, so it looks as if they just added a comma or so, but instead they replaced a book reference of the Dalai Lama with one of their teacher three edits before that. Many different editors in the (Tibetan) Buddhism pages have come across them and were 'defeated' in longer or shorter edit-wars. If it helps, I could ask some of these editors to contact you or to add there comments here??

In short, these users do everyting in their power to 'Game' Misplaced Pages in their obsession. To be honest, even when they would be banned, it is very likely that 'new' users will pop up to continue their systematic manipulation.rudy (talk) 12:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

One more addition. This may sound paranoia, but I suppose that they may have read this notice, and just a few hours ago three brand-new users have popped up: Draesynrei, George415 and Totallydoit who 'by coincidence' continue with exactly the same job. Isn't that strange? These people have become really professional, and I have no idea with how many they are. rudy (talk) 13:03, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Kelsang Gyatso is not a reliable source, that much seems to be clear. Mitsube (talk) 16:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it's really adequate to make a blanket statement that Gyatso or any source affiliated with the NKT is not reliable. I don't know enough about the NKT teachings to identify where they diverge from orthodox Buddhism, but are they really that much more idiosyncratic than, say, the FotWBO or some of the other 'Westerner oriented' hybrid traditions? Obviously divergences from more common positions should not be allowed to be depicted as the majority view, but where the NKT view is in accord with what most sources say, there's no reason to discard those sources. I agree with User:iMatthew that we need specific pages, issues, and diffs to make any useful discussion possible; it's not enough to just issue a blanket condemnation of two editors and then expect people to wade through their entire history looking for problems. I looked at User:Truthbody's edits for a bit and found a few that I find to be idiosyncratic with mainstream Buddhism, or otherwise biased ( ), but also many edits on the topics that the editor is being accused of maligning where the edits that I looked at (obviously just a sample) all appeared fine, if they do lean a bit heavily on Tharpa books. It's much better to discuss edits, not editors. --Clay Collier (talk) 21:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Spacemunki, however, I have not accused Kelsang Gyatso for providing only wrong information on mainstream Buddhism. The problem is that with all these edits they are simply turning the Misplaced Pages into an advertising option for their books and their organisation. For example, when I search for 'tharpa publications' in the Misplaced Pages, I find about 40 links to their books, and virtually all added in the last month: is it acceptable to use Misplaced Pages as a free advertising platform?rudy (talk) 22:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Generally speaking, the writings of any religious teacher should not be regarded as reliable encyclopedic sources for anything more than his or her own opinion. This is especially true in the case of teachers who are controversial within their own circles. Worse yet, Clay gives examples where Geshe Kelsang Gyatso is cited for information about Buddhism or Mahayana thought as a whole, although his thought is apparently based specifically in one school of Tibetan Buddhism. I don't really see any reason why his books are acceptable sources for any Buddhism articles.—Nat Krause 23:34, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

That's a good point, actually- now that I think of it, generally books by someone like the Dalai Lama or Thich Nhat Hanh should probably not be used as sources for general Buddhist views, either- there are too many works by academics that have already done the work of synthesizing traditional views for there to be a need to lean on those, and it runs the risk of substituting personal interpretations for general beliefs. Also, it should always be the case that when a teacher is sourced for a statement, that view is attributed to them, rather than to 'Buddhism' or 'Buddhists'- I object to something like this where an edit removed the link to Gyatso, giving the impression that it is general to all of Buddhism. --Clay Collier (talk) 04:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Geshe Kelsang Gyatso is a reliable and well respected source for Mahayana Buddhism. His books have been read by over half a million people and are studied by tens of thousands. They are also used on university courses. They are mainstream Buddhism. I personally am only trying to help with various Buddhist related articles. I am genuinely trying to help because I love Buddhism. I also just really enjoy editing Misplaced Pages articles. I have hardly even added a great deal -- just a useful sentence or two, or a definition here and there, to articles on Buddhism, with relevant source material (in accordance with Wiki requirements). I was just getting started, I feel I have a lot to offer in terms of helping to clarify some of these articles and have started dialog with other editors e.g. on the article Tantra. I have studied Mahayana Buddhism for 27 years. I find this bias and prejudice against myself, whenever I make edits, inexplicable and uncalled for. It is as if Rudy and Mitsube are trying to run me off Misplaced Pages and it is, frankly, quite hurtful. If you can find examples of Buddhist information that I have added that is wrong or misleading, fair enough, but I think I have added useful and accurate information about Mahayana Buddhism, especially as presented in the Gelugpa and Kadampa traditions of Je Tsongkhapa, and I have been very clear about the sources, which are all WP:RS. I have in no way tried to use Misplaced Pages for advertising, that is an unwarranted accusation. I am only trying to help improve these articles. Please moderators can you encourage these other users to assume good faith when it comes to my edits? And request them to stop making personal attacks on me, my Buddhist tradition, and my Buddhist teachers? And let me know if you have any more questions and I will answer them to the best of my ability. Thank you for your help. (Truthbody (talk) 23:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC))

If you object to my edits, please let me know exactly which ones and I'm happy to discuss these. And I would really appreciate it if you please did some research before making such offensive claims about spirits and goblins and the like -- this slander does not seem suitable on an encyclopedia and I have not bad mouthed any of you so, please, drop the hostility!! Please check this website for more reliable information: http://www.newkadampatruth.org. (Truthbody (talk) 23:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC))

The only referent I am aware of for "mainstream Buddhism" would be the Nikayan schools that were considered orthodox during Aśoka's time. Geshe Kelsang Gyatso's writings can hardly claim to be representative of Theravada Buddhism, or even of East Asian Mahayana. I'm sure he is quite learned in the Tibetan tradition, although I'm not sure if most Tibetan Buddhists would feel comfortable with him being cited as an expert. Anyway, as I argued above, even non-controversial and widely respected teachers should not normally be cited as encyclopedic sources.—Nat Krause 21:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Please will a moderator also ask Mitsube to stop following me around from article to article and reverting all my edits, giving no good reason. (Truthbody (talk) 23:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC))

Thank you for soliciting my view with the invitation on my chittychat page. I tender that the editors should be censured if they do not collaborate for a brilliantly faceted indivisible truth and shanghai with malintent. One practitioner's demon is another's deva: Banes are invariably boons, as what wanes will wax. The murky lurkiness of politikkking...

Aum Svaha Ah

B9 hummingbird hovering 09:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Please ignore B9 hummingbird hovering; he's always like this.—Nat Krause 21:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Dear Rudyh01,

You ask, "When will you ever stop advertising Kelsang Gyatso in Misplaced Pages and trying to hide your edits?" Please note that I never disguise contestable edits as "minor" ones. Instead, I go through the entire article, making major and minor edits along the way. Why is going through an article in one fell swoop considered hiding my edits?

For the quote by the Dalai Lama, my edit summary said, "the DL quote made it seem like no Bodhisattva ever cultivates boatman-like or shepherd-like bodhichitta, which is incorrect." The Bodhisattva article itself says, "Shepherd-like Bodhisattva - one who aspires to delay buddhahood until all other sentient beings achieve buddhahood. Bodhisattvas like Avalokiteshvara, Shantideva among others are believed to fall in this category." Did you know that Manjushri also became a Bodhisattva by first cultivating shepherd-like bodhichitta? Yet, the DL quote says, "there is no way that a Bodhisattva either would want to or could delay achieving full enlightenment." That is why I think it is incorrect, no matter who said it. Emptymountains (talk) 11:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

My general advice on this issue is to nominate a very strict administrator who would follow the attempted of these (pro-shugden) fellows. The best would be to have a specific page where to report the problems, so as to be able to stop it. We have had the same problem on the french page. By carefully using the rules of wikipedia, we could at least control these peoples. By the way, it was "funny" to witness a "defender of RPC" was helping these fellows. He probably didn't know he was taking on a him a very dark karmic energy ... --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 12:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I think these users are experiencing the same kind of blantant sectarianism which is now rife in the Buddhist world since the Dalai Lama banned the practice of Dorje Shugden. The articles are not related to the Shugden issue so why do you and other insist on making this a Shugden issue? it is not. Is it not permissible for those Buddhists who practise the New Kadampa Tradition to make edits to articles on Buddhism without having to suffer blatant discrimination from other Buddhists? I would appeal to the admins to protect the right of anyone to contribute to these articles if they can improve them.--Truthsayer62 (talk) 14:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I second the comments of Matthew - specifics are probably necessary--seeding references to NKD thoughout wikipedia, if that is in fact what is happening, it is troubling but I'm not sure what it would run afoul of, if anything. Sylvain1972 (talk) 14:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:ROUGE

So is it rəʊɡ or ruːʒ? It Is Me Here 18:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• Definitely the latter.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:15, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
• Its both. Synergy 18:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
• This doesn't require admin attention. hmwithτ 19:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
• Yes. Uncle G (talk) 02:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
• I've always pronounced it roʊg'. Xclamation point 04:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
• Always written, never spoken of aloud. -- SEWilco (talk) 04:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Appeal from merger of "Serratio peptidase" into "Serratiopeptidase"

The merger (which took place over protests in the "talk page" for the article "Serratio peptidase") involved deletion of almost all the content of the article "Serratio peptidase", despite the content deleted being greater that the content in the other article retained. The article retained was poorly written and cited only irrelevant references which did not support that author's thesis. The material deleted from the other article, on the contrary, was cogently written and cited pertinent references which strongly supported the other author's thesis. We request uninvolved editors' action on this matter, to obviate an edit war.0XQ (talk) 20:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

You'll probably want to go to WP:DR, the deletion review board, and file an appeal there. ThuranX (talk) 20:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

It was a POV fork and was simply redirected, there was no deletion and nothing in this case to merge. It has been discussed on the Talk:Serratiopeptidase. The fork even had the same name! OXQ can propose adding any material to the Serratiopeptidase article on the talk page. There really is nothing to see here. Verbal chat 21:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

It's also I think a bit tendentious. We have Serrapeptase and Serratiopeptidase and Serratio peptidase with one editor insisting on separate articles because "Any merger is likely to result in an "edit war" ". Dougweller (talk) 06:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Robert Axelrod (actor) image

It has recently come to my attention that Robert Axelrod (actor) is not all too happy with Tsubasacon releasing an image of him under Creative Commons to Misplaced Pages. The image has already been removed once before from the article by an SPA, and the attribution was removed from the image at around the same time by a different SPA. Since I was the one who originally uploaded the image as a representative of Tsubasacon and would prefer the image to stay, I'm not exactly sure what should be done under Misplaced Pages's policies. --Farix (Talk) 21:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

There are two possibilities. One Axelrod is not happy about the quality of the image - in which case if he can provide a superior quality image we can use under GFDL that should take care of that. The second is this is a Personality rights issue - this is something that may need to go to WP:OFFICE. Exxolon (talk) 04:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

If Robert Axelrod does not want the image to be used on Misplaced Pages, then it should be deleted. Master&Expert (Talk) 06:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not surprised - this looks nothing like the Robert Axelrod I remember... JPG-GR (talk) 17:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Administrative help needed in stopping racist propaganda and vandalism

89.186.103.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 89.186.107.119 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have apparently decided to use Misplaced Pages as a soapbox for an anti-Gypsy campaign. While some of this user's edits constitute overt and easily recognizable racist vandalism , other edits are problematic in a more subtle way. For instance, he seems particularly fond of vandalizing quotations to directly misrepresent the words of the original authors: in , he maliciously modifies a quotation from . In the same edit, this user also injects racist soapboxing into the article. While this troublesome user seems to have access to a range of dynamic IP addresses, it seems worthwhile to semi-protect Antiziganism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), with which he seems obsessed, and the BLP Viktória Mohácsi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which he has also targeted for his vitriol . Declaring this user banned would also be helpful, so that he could be quickly reverted as many times as needed without examining each particular edit to determine whether it meets the technical criteria of vandalism. Erik9 (talk) 22:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

We can't ban an ip address, but we can block it. The edits are sufficiently outrageous that i see no need of further warnings; I've blocked each for 1 month to stop further disruption. If it repeatsafter that we can block for longer. I've also semipotected the two articles for a week. If longer is needed, let us know. DGG (talk) 03:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Trying to merge 2 articles

I am not sure of the procedure, but i'm trying to merge two articles. The articles are Haitian occupation of Santo Domingo and Haití Español. As of now, they deal with the same subject, although Haitian occupation of Santo Domingo is written from an extreme point of view. Also I would like to change the name of Haití Español to Spanish Haiti since this is the English Misplaced Pages. The same way that Brazil is known as Brasil when written in Portuguese, but in the English Article it is known as Brazil. Brazil (Portuguese: Brasil). Any help would be appreciated. SenorDonGuapo (talk) 06:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Just a note, "Spanish Haiti" redirects to Haití Español. Master&Expert (Talk) 06:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes i know, i think its better to be one single article. Spanish Haiti. Can someone help me with this merge. i'm not good at this at all. SenorDonGuapo (talk) 07:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Taylor Corp. (Taylor Corporation) page very likely controlled by Taylor Corporation

See Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Taylor Corp. (Taylor Corporation) page very likely controlled by Taylor Corporation. This is a general editor matter, not an administrator matter. Uncle G (talk) 12:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

user: Gwen Gale

This user has repeatedly blocked me for simple not choosing not to have an account and has reverted my contributions to talkpages and my complaint on wikiquette http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages%3AWikiquette_alerts&diff=281888750&oldid=281888678 This is prejudice and incompatible with wikipedia's open policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.180.250 (talk) 13:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

PLEASE HELP this user is continually blocking me, reverting my complaint about her, and removing my comment from talkpages! This is essentially harassment of people who choose just to focus on editing and not get involved with the "wikipedia community" aspect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.182.108 (talk) 13:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Clearly a headstrong sock on a dynamic IP. Not much to do until it settles down, I guess. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

just because someone chooses not to have an account you call them a sock? isn't that Bad Faith? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.182.108 (talk) 13:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

she has now reverted my comments from a talkpage and locked the page, this is clear prejudice, please act. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.182.108 (talk) 15:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Please see Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette_alerts#Anon_86.25.18.2A..2A_contentious_editing_and_misleading_edit_summaries_at_History_of_Terrorism. Anon user also raised points against me an another editor at Wikiquette_alerts, where he didn't sign posts either. This is clearly a disruptive sock, and I am raising the case since no third party action has risen after weeks of asking. --Cerejota (talk) 19:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

You're calling me a sock because i chose to conform to your rules? isn't that bad faith? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.181.127 (talk) 20:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mcenroeucsb, suspected WP:GHBH.--Cerejota (talk) 20:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

As if calling legitimate edits "vandalism" is such an example of good faith, as is edit warring long-standing admins. Please, stop being disruptive. --Cerejota (talk) 20:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikikillers

A user FireNoChimmny (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has just created this article and has also founded a facebook group of the same name for the sole purpose to vandalise wikipedia. Might be worth watching. --DFS454 (talk) 15:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I've clicked the "Report group" button at the bottom. Xclamation point 17:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, and thanks for reporting the group to Facebook, X! Unfortunately, we have no control over what Facebook does, and the group gives no heads up to the types of vandalism users enjoy (wouldn't it make it easier if they did?). Therefore, recent changes patrolling will just continue as normal. hmwithτ 20:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Just to inform you, there's also the Wikikiller Club - with 22 members... The West's Fatal Overdose (talk) 20:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Meh, it's just tip of the iceberg. There are tonnes of groups on Facebook that is dedicated to vandalizing Misplaced Pages. OhanaUnited 04:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

User Mitsube

I have been having a lot of trouble with user:Mitsube, who seems to be following me from article to article and undoing all my edits and references with no valid reasons. I have tried talking to him/her on his talk page, so far to no avail -- he ignores me there and carries on reverting my edits. I notice from his talk page that other editors also have a hard time with him. What do you suggest I do next? Thanks for your help. (Truthbody (talk) 17:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC))

The user has been spamming articles on my watchlist with material published by a publisher devoted to the ideas of a leader of a Tibetan Buddhist sect. The material is unreliable. The user has violated 3rr at Tantra techniques (Vajrayana). Mitsube (talk) 20:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The user tries to include as much material from only one teacher and only one publisher as possible and makes many links to the same websites, promoting his teacher and religion. The publications are modern religious teachings from a somewhat controversial tibetan buddhist group (sect). Their take on things doesn't not represent tibetan buddhism as a whole. The user takes everything personal, and is quite new to wikipedia. Greetings, Sacca 20:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Sacca, when you say "the user", are you referring to the topic of this thread or its author? hmwithτ 21:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Sacca is referring to edits made by User:Truthbody, not Mitsube. Viriditas (talk) 01:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

For further discussion of the author, please see the Users Emptymountains and Truthbody section above. hmwithτ 21:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Note: I notified the user of this section. hmwithτ 19:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

These accusations are untrue. And I am not trying to take things personally -- but Mitsube and Sacca are making this entirely personal by insulting me, my edits, my religion, my teachers etc (which can be seen on their reversions of my edits and on the discussion above). They are not basing their comments on facts. I have included books from an author who is reliable, but not only from him, and only in places where the edits and WP:RS have improved the articles, which is what I am trying to do. I explain where the edits are coming from (the mainstream Gelugpa school of Buddhism). I am not new to Misplaced Pages. I am not spamming. I am trying to help with an area that I have studied for 27 years. Mitsube and his friend user:Sacca are joining forces to try and run me off these articles due to some prejudice they have which is not based on facts or reason. They are no doubt hoping I will give up before they do. But is this bully boy behaviour really how Misplaced Pages is supposed to function? Please request them to stop undoing all my edits. (Truthbody (talk) 21:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC))

Read and understand Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest, as you are editing articles that you have an admittedly strong POV about, and you are emotionally invested in the outcome of promoting your outside interests. Your interests, however fascinating they may be, are secondary to our policies and guidelines. From what I can tell, Mitsube and Sacca have not been following you around; on the contrary, you have been editing articles on their watchlists, articles that they have been editing for a long time. I think you need to take this issue to the WikiProject and the appropriate noticeboards (Reliable sources and Original research). Viriditas (talk) 01:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

There are some significant concerns about the use of the sources that User:Truthbody is relying on; harassment is not acceptable, but if the user is repeatedly adding material with the same sourcing issues to pages that Mitsube is watching, than reverting is not harassment. Again, I think we need to see specific edits and pages where there are issues, rather than just making blanket claims about editors. A discussion in general about using specific teachers as sources should probably be started at the Wikiproject:Buddhism page, and then ask for third party opinions on pages where there are specific conflicts. --Clay Collier (talk) 03:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

"I explain where the edits are coming from (the mainstream Gelugpa school of Buddhism)." The Dalai Lama, who is the de facto leader of the Gelugpas, has condemned this movement. Has anyone got a reliable source saying how many Gelugpas support each side? Peter jackson (talk) 08:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The point here is not what the Dalai Lama likes and what he dislikes, it is the accuracy of the information that is being added to the articles. If the information being added is incorrect, of course it should be deleted but it is mainstream Gelugpa view that no one would have a problem with. The problem is that some people have taken a sectarian dislike to Geshe Kelsang and his books because of his opposition to the Dalai Lama over his ban of the practice of Dorje Shugden. This is no valid reason to prevent information that is correct being added from these books, surely? I would go further and request the Admins to protect users from the discrimination and sectarianism that is being shown through changes to these articles being reverted for no good reason. --Truthsayer62 (talk) 14:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Why is user:Mitsube permitted to keep undoing every single one of my changes on the Vajrayana page instead of taking each one on its merits (and editing it further if he wishes)? If the edits add something useful to the article, is it correct for him to just keep reverting everything I do, even if the article is on his "watch list"? For example, this one: "Although it is sometimes called death yoga, it is mainly practiced during life, during meditation. It can be practiced first according to generation stage and then according to completion stage. The accumulation of meditative practice helps to prepare the practitioner for what they need to do at the time of death. At the time of death the mind is in a subtle state (clear light) that can open the mind to enlightenment if it is skilfully used to meditate on emptiness (shunyata). During completion stage meditation it is possible to manifest a similar clear light mind and use it to meditate on emptiness. This meditation causes dualistic appearances to subside into emptiness and enables the practitioner to destroy their ignorance and the imprints of ignorance that are the obstructions to omniscience. It is said that masters like Lama Tsong Khapa used these techniques to achieve enlightenment during the death process." This is a standard explanation of how to do death yoga, it is correct. So why just delete it? There are other examples, i'm trying to be specific to show the problems I am encountering with this user. Please can the moderators ask Mitsube to discuss why exactly he disagrees with an edit like this one on the talk page before unilaterally removing it and trying to have an edit war. And with all due respect, Viriditas, I am not trying to "protect outside interests", I am only trying to improve these articles in accordance with wiki policy, including neutrality. Please give me one example of an edit Mitsube has removed where I have not followed wiki policy. Thank you. (Truthbody (talk) 17:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC))

The problem is that sourcing exclusively from NKT sources forces other editors to constantly ask: is this point different between the NKT and other traditions- particularly in the cases where NKT positions are being held to apply generally to all of Mahayana or all of Buddhism- or can it reasonably stand in as a general description? By its own admission, NKT has disassociated itself from the rest of the Tibetan Buddhist community; to say that NKT is the same as orthodox Gelugpa is a bit confusing to me, because on at least one issue (Shugden), NKT has gone one way and other Gelugpa (including many senior people in the Tibetan exile community) have gone another. Is this really the only difference in doctrine and interpretation between the NKT and the rest of Tibetan Buddhism? NKT believes itself to be the heirs of the 'true' Gelugpa tradition, but non-NKT Tibetan Buddhists see it differently. And as was discussed above, using the views of a particular teacher as a source for information about Buddhism or a branch of Buddhism generally run the risk of substituting that teacher's personal understanding of the topic for the broader view- we can't assume just because the Dalai Lama is a Tibetan Buddhist that what is presented as his understanding of every Tibetan Buddhist topic is the correct one, just as we can't assume that Kelsang Gyatso's view of every topic are correct. There exists a controversy about the status of the NKT in relation to the rest of the tradition. By relying exclusively on sources that are specific to one side of the dispute, it becomes impossible for editors to know if interpretations idiosyncratic to that tradition are being presented as the general understanding of all Tibetan Buddhists, or all Mahayanists. The bottom line is that it is inappropriate for NKT's views to stand in for all of Tibetan Buddhism, or all of Mahayana; there are plenty of sources that adopt the viewpoint of no particular school that contain descriptions of these broader views. --Clay Collier (talk) 20:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the Buddhism taught by Geshe Kelsang (which is the same as that taught by Trijang Rinpoche) or by the Dalai Lama or by any other Buddhist teacher should NOT be presented on a general encyclopedia as the only view of Buddhism. But I am not aware that I have tried to present my contributions as such, which is why I have sourced edits to that particular author (and also to other sources -- I have edited many articles and used a huge number of different sources). The problem I am finding with user:Mitsube and user:Sacca is that they are simply reverting any edit I do on any article that they are also working on and they have not given one single specific example of an edit that is inaccurate or even non-representative of Buddhism. As for whether Geshe Kelsang presents mainstream Gelugpa teachings, hopefully this might shed some light: http://www.newkadampatruth.org/newkadampa5a.php and http://newkadampatruth.wordpress.com/2008/12/07/has-the-nkt-broken-away-from-the-mainstream/ (Truthbody (talk) 21:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC))

WP:AIV backlogged

hasn't been cleared for 20+ minutes. any admins about? Enigma 17:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Backlogged again. Also, this appears to be a vandalism-only account. Enigma 20:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. It tends to build up around this time of day, but it looks like several admins are on it now. hmwithτ 20:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I reported an IP 20 minutes ago. It's been repeatedly vandalizing several pages. 20 minutes later and nothing has been done. This is rather frustrating. I hate having to rollback again and again and again... Enigma 21:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Ban enforcement request: User:BobaFett85 (latest sockpuppet of banned User:Top Gun)

"A user may be blocked when his or her conduct severely disrupts the project; that is, when his or her conduct is inconsistent with a civil, collegial atmosphere and interferes with the process of editors working together harmoniously to create an encyclopedia. A block for disruption may be necessary in response to: ... persistent gross incivility; ... edit warring or revert warring; ... breaching the sock puppetry policy; ... persistently violating other policies or guidelines."

Dear administrators,

After having noticed numerous exhaustive attempts by editors to get a particularly disruptive editor to respect basic Misplaced Pages principles such as WP:Do not disrupt Misplaced Pages to illustrate a point, WP:No original research, WP:Verifiability, and WP:Disruptive editing, I would like to request/suggest an indefinite block/ban on User:BobaFett85 on the basis of unrelenting disruption, enforcing bans, and evasion of blocks.

To summarize, User:BobaFett85 is the latest sockpuppet of User:Top Gun, aka User:Guyver85 aka 89.216.*.* aka 87.116.*.*, who is a community-banned user, has used at least 10 accounts (3 named accounts and at least 7 IP accounts), has been blocked at least 13 times, has been blocked indefinitely 3 times, has repeatedly used sockpuppetry to evade the indefinite blocks and the community-ban, has disrupted with at least 6 articles nominated for deletion, and has been given numerous warnings for edit warring, revert warring, lack of civility, disruptive editing, and other violations of Misplaced Pages policies. This is a case of long-term WP:Disruptive editing, WP:Do not disrupt Misplaced Pages to illustrate a point, and WP:Sock puppetry.

As per WP:Banning Policy, "Banned or blocked users sometimes return to Misplaced Pages using another user name. Obvious reincarnations are easily dealt with—the account is blocked and contributions are reverted or deleted, as discussed above."

"A banned user who evades a ban, may have all of their edits reverted without question (with the exceptions listed here). Any pages that they create may be deleted on sight, per WP:CSD#G5 (though care should be taken if other editors have made good-faith edits to the page or its talk page)"

Community-banned User:Top Gun returned to Misplaced Pages repeatedly using numerous other user names in obvious reincarnations.

Action requested: WP:Banning policy mandates an indefinite block/ban of User:BobaFett85 and his alternate account User:89.216.236.45 as obvious reincarnations of community-banned User:Top Gun to enforce the indefinite block that is in place on User:Top Gun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ActionRequest (talk • contribs) 17:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

So, who are you, ActionRequest? It appears that you've created a single-purpose sockpuppet to post a ban request and engage in canvassing on its behalf. Admins around here don't like to jump without reasonably complete information, and a sockpuppet asking for the ban of another (purported) sockpuppet is troubling. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this is single-purpose account created for the sole purpose of reporting this sockpuppet and requesting action. I will not be using this account for any other purpose. Because the user in question is tendentious to an extreme and is sure to be back, I was concerned about having to deal with a nightmare of reprisals. I created this account as a makeshift form of witness protection program or whistleblower protection program, though it probably won't help in the end. You can discount my request on this basis if you feel you should, but I believe I have documented the case above sufficiently that it stands on its own. ActionRequest (talk) 18:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations are requested here. hmwithτ 19:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

A checkuser report has been made at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Top Gun and it appears to have been accepted. As such, I'm marking this as resolved. Nick-D (talk) 08:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/JzG 3

Just to let everyone know, I have nominated Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/JzG 3 for MfD, there is no actual evidence of anyone trying to resolve this dispute, and no real evidence that the dispute was ever identified by anyone other than Abd, who is to say the least of an odd character. Multiple users in good faith have identified the RfC as vexatious, a restatement of multiple previously dismissed complaints, a characteristic behaviour with Abd. I do not intend to watchlist the RfC or the MfD debate or comment any further on either, I think that their useful purpose has been exhausted in that a serious problem with Abd's behaviour has been identified and I will leave it to uninvolved individuals to raise any RfC that may be deemed necessary or desirable. I don't think it's fixable myself, it's a case of show him the door or live forever with his flat refusal to accept or drop any consensus that goes against him. Guy (Help!) 20:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Now closed Speedy Keep. --Salix (talk): 21:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Fine, so just move the RfC to Misplaced Pages:List of users with grudges against JzG and be done with it, that's its only function now. Guy (Help!) 11:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I don't think we need to host a page that big - the current page suffices for the very small portion of that huge gathering currently bothering with the matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Being a friend of JzG does take an unusual amount of determination. What do you say, old bean, about making things a little easier on your friends? Jehochman 13:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Full clerkships

Arbitration clerk trainees User:Mailer diablo, User:MBisanz, and User:Tiptoety have been granted full clerkships by the arbiration committee. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Lol trainees. This is opposed to being half a clerk? Majorly talk 23:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

No, trainees are 9/13th of a clerk. — Coren  23:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I can haz fez? Tiptoety 02:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

9/13... is that like the Three-fifths compromise?---I'm Spartacus! 19:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

AWB and rollback

Hi! I have a quick question for admins. It seems that I made a mistake when using WP:AWB to add listas parameters to biography tags, so I was wondering if it would be acceptable to use admin rollback to undo them all to save time (well over 100 edits). If not, I can use Twinkle, but I was just wondering if that was OK under the current policies and guidelines. Thanks! –Drilnoth (T • C) 01:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I've now finished this with Twinkle. –Drilnoth (T • C) 02:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a little late now, but in future, rollback is fine for stuff like this (self-reverts, reverting bots that made many errors). See Misplaced Pages:ROLLBACK#Mass rollbacks and Misplaced Pages:ROLLBACK#Custom_edit summaries. –xeno (talk) 02:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Page move over redirect

Can someone move South Towns to Southtowns?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. Is there a reason I could and you couldn't, as I'm no admin. Grsz 01:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I did not try. I thought there was a problem moving over a redirect. Now, that I think about it though, I think I remember seeing something about this being fixed in a Signpost. I apologize.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban for User:DougsTech

Discussion

Misplaced Pages is not an experimental model of open democracy and certainly is not an experiment in online libertarianism. I'm interpreting this huge discussion and the previous epic situations with Kurt to indicate a presumptive consensus here and favoring of a topic ban from RfX, which I've notified DougsTech of here. Now can we please get on with writing an encyclopedia? rootology (C)(T) 15:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• No way Rootology you cant possibly impose a topic ban with this lack of support after less then 24 hours. This is insane. There is no consensus and we should never act this urgently without a clear and present danger to the project. Whatt happened to allowing editors in all timezones to comment? Has DougsTech even commented on this yet?. I'm unarchiving and unresolving this. Please let discussion and consensus find its own way in its own time. Sheesh Spartaz 16:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

It has recently come to my attention that this user has been opposing every single RFA on the assumption there are "too many administrators currently". Engaging in discussion with this editor is useless as everything said is a personal attack. The point of RFA is to give an opinion on whether the candidate is suitable for adminship or not. Or even just about the candidate. DougsTech is abusing the process by doing neither of these, but posting a blanket statement on his misguided view of the situation (i.e. the false idea we have too many admins). Unlike with Kurt Weber, it is impossible to be supported by this user. Kurt, with all his faults, at least supported occasionally, and had a reason that I could, at a long stretch, agree with. But DougsTech's votes have nothing to do with the candidate. We need this to be nipped in the bud while it's still fresh. We need to stamp out nonsense when we see it. All the bureaucrats I have spoken to have said they ignore his vote, so there is no point in his continuing to edit RFA pages. All his votes do is draw attention to himself when an unsuspecting person unfamiliar questions it. Yes, people are allowed to give their opinions, but the opinions need to be relevant and about the discussion at hand, not about something else entirely. He is doing nothing positive on RFA, is being totally ignored in the result, so I think a topic ban to ensure that we don't feed him would be the best solution here.

Additionally, he is now edit warring on an RFA template trying to remove the word "only" which implies there are too few admins. This user needs some time away from RFAs. Majorly talk 01:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support - enough is enough. His actions are the very definition of WP:POINT. //roux   02:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose as while I do not agree with the editor in question's stance, I see no reason not to allow him to express it. If it is his opinion, so be it. People can easily ignore those with whom they disagree. And even if it is a minority or dissenting opinion, there is value in having a variety of opinions expressed. We run into dangerous territory if we start censoring opinions and stifling discussions in RfAs or anywhere. Sincerely, --A Nobody 02:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • He's allowed to express it, just not on RFAs, where he is ignored by bureaucrats, and where the opinion expressed is supposed to be about the candidate in question. Nothing is being censored here: just asking him to take it elsewhere. It does not belong on RFAs. Majorly talk 02:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I reckon bucreacrats probably ignore a good deal of comments in RfAs that are not convincing, but if we prevented people from voicing their opinions just because bureacrats ignore them, who knows how many editors' opinions we would not allow? Yes, his comment is not specific to the candidates, but hey, if that's what he feels, so be it. As with the other user you mnetion (I am not repeating his username as I believe he left under "right to vanish"), I think more hubub was caused by challenging his copy and paste opposes than by just ignoring it. I disagreed with him, too, but it just never really bothered me if that's how he feels. It really just seems like we'd be better off not making an issue of it than doing so. Let him say what he wants to say. If people disagree okay. If they want to engage with him in the Rfas, then who knows maybe they can get somewhere that convinces him to think about the candidates as individuals. And if we have a discussion, isn't that better than just a vote (i.e. a list of supports and opposes)? Now I would agree with you if he said to oppose "because all admins are (choose some insult)" that would be perceived as a personal attack or incivil, but if he just thinks we have too many admins and wants to do say as much, it's just a "whatever," move along. I am just concerned that if we start barring people from commenting when they aren't making a clear personal attack, we could establish a dangerous precendent that will invite challenges to other people's stances. And besides, what about those who say "Support, we don't have enough admins", which I have seen as well? Best, --A Nobody 02:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
      • I'm afraid "so be it" is the wrong attitude. We are clearly being trolled here, and it's sad people are too nice to see it. But we are. DougsTech adds nothing of any value to RFAs: his opinion is totally ignored by bureaucrats, who have publicly stated as such; his vote will always offend somebody; his vote has nothing to do with the candidacy, so is off topic and irrelevant; he has proven difficult to talk to, and argumentative, and has taken his "stance" further by edit warring on an RFA template trying to push his opinion. I'm all for discussing whether we have enough admins or not. Individual RFAs simply is not the right place to do that. Majorly talk 02:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
        • How are we sure we are being trolled? Shouldn't we WP:AGF? Now unless if (and I admit here I haven't looked), he has a history of other unconstructive edits, then why should we conclude that we are being trolled? I'd rather give him the benefit of the doubt. It just seems that as far as potentially bad things to say or do at RfAs, his opposes are just not that serious. Now, if he was vote stacking, making personal attacks, etc. okay, but really just saying we have too many admins? And again, I disagree with that assertion, but it just doesn't seem like something to lose sleep over (and no, I am not suggesting anyone actually is losing sleep over it, but I suppose you get what I mean). Best, --A Nobody 02:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
          • I'm pretty certain we are being trolled. It's nice of you to assume good faith, but it's difficult to assume good faith when someone is very deliberately disrupting the RFA process, and finding every loophole in the book to allow himself to do so. Perhaps my bullshit toleration level is lower than yours; that's fine. We have put up with this silliness for enough time though. Majorly talk 02:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
            • I don't know...I just don't like the idea of not allowing someone to say what he wants to say in such instances. And hey, people know me as being a strong inclusionist and all and well, accordingly to Doug's userpage he's a deletionist, so one might think I would jump on this opportunity to silence someone of the opposite editing philosophy, but that just wouldn't be right. We need dissenting and diverse opinions to challenge each other even if we really don't like the opposing viewpoints. And as far as I can tell, he is otherwise an editor in good standing, no? Now, again, if it were clear that he was a sock of a banned editor or had a block log full of vandalism or harassment blocks or something, I could maybe see something here, but it just doesn't feel right to silence him here. Maybe if he is just ignored and his view doesn't influence others, he'll try a different track? I just really want to give people the benefit of the doubt as much as possible, I suppose. Sincerely, --A Nobody 02:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose He has a valid (but in my opinion incorrect) argument and we shouldn't silence dissent. I don't think the closing crats take his opinion to mean much, anyway. Perhaps if we'd ignore him he'll stop that. The behaviour that's most disruptive at the RfAs is all the bad faith responses and accusations that his opinion creates. ThemFromSpace 02:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • No, the argument is about the situation, not the candidate. It doesn't belong on each RFA. It belongs on RFA talk. There is no point in an editor continuing to troll us (which he is doing) if his votes are even being totally ignored. Majorly talk 02:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I don't consider him a troll. As I said above, I think the response to his opinion has created more disruption than his opinion itself. If he believes that there really are too many admins than it makes sense for him to try to shut down the gates and prevent any more editors from becoming admins. Misplaced Pages works by consensus, and consensus isn't on his side yet. Perhaps there will be a day where we have too many admins and RfAs will need to be suspended but consensus says that day isn't yet. ThemFromSpace 02:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
      • You need to look at the start of the chain. 1. User makes controversial vote. 2. People respond to it. It's human nature. Most of us know not to respond to it, but there will always be someone who is unaware (as I clearly explained in my summary above), which means that for the best, it is suitable he is prevented from making any more "votes" (I hesitate to call them votes, because they are completely ignored, and have nothing to do with the discussion being voted on). His dissent does not belong on each and every RFA. If he thinks there are too many, he ought to make consensus on RFA talk. Until then, he should either start voting about the candidate at hand, or stop altogether, because this is blatant abuse of the process. It is very sad people are far too forgiving and easy-going, when we are clearly being trolled here. DougsTech's "opinion" adds nothing to RFAs, or consensus (as it's ignored), so has no place here. Shame you can't see that. Ah well. Majorly talk 02:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
        • Your comment borders on being uncivil. Last time I checked we didn't ban people for stating their opinions in a discussion. It's the most unpopular opinions that need to be protected the most. If others will learn to accept his point of view maybe we can move forward with this frivolous discussion. One can vote to oppose a candidate who doesnt have, say, 6 months of experience. Or that person can write an essay on it and be ignored by the RfA consensus. The only fair way to let DougsTech participate is to let him have his say at RfA. Writing essays and postings on chat boards isn't a direct action, when participating in the actual RfA is. ThemFromSpace 02:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
          • Your comment is bordering on being uncivil. Opinions have a time and place. RFA is already brutal enough as it is. DougsTech does not offer an opinion about the candidate. If he did, we would not be here. Until he offers an opinion about the candidate on an RFA, he has no right to be using RFA to troll us. He is disrupting the RFA process to make a point, that we have too many admins. RFA is not about opinions on just any old thing. He is offering an opinion on the general situtation, which is totally inappropriate. Once again: opinions about topics have a time and place. RFA is not the place to discuss whether there are enough admins or not. Until you, and he sees that, it will continue to be disrupted. Majorly talk 02:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
            • This topic isn't about me and since you've turned the argument at me by implying that I am somehow at fault for this, I'm now through with this conversation. I've made my point clear above. ThemFromSpace 02:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
              • I never said the topic was about you. You're merely supporting allowing a user to continue disrupting Misplaced Pages. So in effect you are at fault, in my opinion, though not at all directly. Thanks for dropping by, your opinion was highly appreciated. Majorly talk 02:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support. The user knows that his votes are being ignored by the closing crats, and he continues to do it anyway in the hopes of drawing a reaction. This is pretty much the definition of trolling. If he believes there are too many admins, there are other, more appropriate places to discuss this, such as WT:RFA. I think a lengthy topic ban (but one that will have an effect, on the order of magnitude of 3 months) would be a good deterrent to stop the disruption. Firestorm 02:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I notified DougsTech of this discussion, which should have been done by now. ThemFromSpace 02:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support Any gain that may have come from this users voting has been worn away by the mindless repetition. Far too often this user has disrupted people RfAs, not because he has an opinion on the person, but because he wants to make a point. He does not base this opinion on the candidate, yet that is the location he chooses to express it. Chillum 02:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support - He made an alright argument at WT:RFA, and I figured if the crats were discounting it anyway then it wasn't the worst thing that could happen. I have, however, just seen his actions at Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/nominate, which make me believe that this is indeed an attempt at disrupting Misplaced Pages to make a point. Specific RfAs are not the place to voice believed issues with adminship or the number of admins - that should be discussed elsewhere. — neuro 02:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support the Kurt battles went on long enough, and this is following the same pattern that followed. The choices to deal with this are (1). DougsTech stops his votes, (2). he is topic-banned, (3). everyone else is topic banned, or (4). everyone stops responding to him. 3 and 4 would be very, very hard to enforce: everyone can't be topic banned from RfA, and as the Kurt issue demonstrated, RfA non-regulars will keep responding to the opposes, and we'll keep going round in circles. With 1, DougsTech has been unwilling to stop his votes, so that unfortunately leaves us with 2. If his votes are ignored by all the bureaucrats, then I see no point in renewing drama. Finally, as Neurolysis points out, the edit warring on the RfA template is not acceptable, and is what convinced me to support this. Acalamari 02:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support- I believe DougsTech's "opposebot"-like behaviour is unhelpful and inapplicable to individual candidates. It is grossly unfair to a candidate to be opposed on grounds that have nothing whatsoever to do with their work, demeanour or suitability for the job and in my opinion the bureaucrats are right to ignore DougsTech's !vote. Having said that, I was going to oppose this topic ban motion- usually I would argue that even the most unpopular and unhelpful opinions should be tolerated even if they're later rejected. However, I now find myself convinced by Firestorm's argument that DougsTech's behaviour amounts to trolling- DT knows his votes are being ignored but persists with them because of the annoyance and drama they cause. That is trolling. Reyk _YO! 02:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support We made the mistake of tolerating this nonsense with Kurt for way too long. Non RfA regulars who try to get the bit in good faith, but who don't know about the loony bin RfA groupies, shouldn't have to put up with this kind of absurdity. Hiberniantears (talk) 02:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Strongest possible support - His point has been made, and it's pissed off a countless amount of users. While it's not that big of a deal, most candidates would of course like to see their RfA go un-opposed. While it's not common, it's most certainly not fair if that's ruined for a user over an oppose that doesn't even concern them directly. That aside, his behavior is just unacceptable.  iMatthew :  Chat  02:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support per Reyk. He knows its being ignored by the bureaucrats and that it annoys people, yet he persists on doing it. Its not WP:POINT because its not actually proving anything, its just disruption. Mr.Z-man 02:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support It is painfully obvious that he is violating WP:POINT by making his copy/pasted oppose comment in just about every RFA. This is apparent trolling. These comments are just causing unnecessary turmoil at WP:RFA and are placed in the completely wrong area if DougsTech wants to put out and prove his assertion. Lastly, the comments have nothing to do with the abilities, temperament, edits, or experience of any of the RFA candidates or how they would handle the tools. There is every reason to ban DougsTech from RFA, not even mentioning the ongoing edit warring mentioned by Majorly. Timmeh! 02:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support - He has every right to express his opinion (as much as I disagree with it). However, individual RfA discussions are not the place to do so, and at the moment he is disrupting Misplaced Pages to prove a point. –Juliancolton |  03:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• To clarify, NuclearWarfare sums it up nicely. –Juliancolton |  15:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - I disagree with Dougstech but I can't see how his comments do any particular harm. I imagine they are ignored or barely regarded by closing bureaucrats, who are assessing the actual discussion points made rather than the number of !votes either way. I don't see them as particularly offending RfA candidates either - they're generic so its nothing personal, and the real tension of an RfA is people trawling through your contribution history in search of mild misdemeanours or limited work in some admin-related area. If the RfA is not close the final tally is meaningless and so is Dougstech's view, if it is close then the bureaucrats will give Dougstech's views the appropriate minimal weight. I agree with those who argue he is trying to make a fairly needless point, but the actual disruption is inconsequential, perhaps compared with the potential drama of a topic ban. Euryalus (talk) 03:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose If you think there's too many admins, then you have a valid reason to oppose nominations. What else are you supposed to do to prevent more admins coming into existence? On RfA talk you'll just get ignored; at least on the RfAs, your vote counts. I don't think its right either to topic ban him or to ignore his vote. Obviously if he were smarter he'd just find an excuse, but we can't seek to oppress honesty when it's there (if it's there). I don't think it sends a right message either, that admins (who dominate RfAs) are seeking to oppress users who think there's too many admins (that's obviously not how it is, but rather how it'll be presented). There is the argument of course that he is just abusing the process to get attention, but I don't accept the weight of this as this user isn't charismatic enough to make it effective. In fact, just the opposite is happening, as can be seen in this thread. Undoubtedly if he continues more people will swarm around him reverting his contributions, driving him to blocks, and so on. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

  Just a quick response. DougsTech would not be ignored on RfA talk; apparently, you haven't seen the discussion there in which he participated. Also, a vote such as DougsTech's would always be ignored by bureaucrats, so it would not count. He is disrupting the RFA process to make a point, and he is not commenting on the actual candidate in question but repeating the same statement about his belief that there are too many admins. That's the reason his vote is not being taken into account. Every individual RfA is not the place to voice an opinion on administrators in general; RFA talk is the appropriate place, whether his comment would be ignored or not (it wouldn't and hasn't). Timmeh! 04:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

  Well, I did say the crats shouldn't ignore his votes. Nothing is going to come of any RfA talk page movement by him, and community consensus is against his view. So, for all practical purposes, it'll be ignored and will count for nothing in all forums but RfA voting. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support - It is painfully obvious that he is disrupting Misplaced Pages to prove a point, and from prior experience with Kurt, we let this type of behavior stay around individual RfAs for way too long. -MBK₀₀₄ 04:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Big support. It is one of those "clear examples" of being pointy OhanaUnited 04:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support. This is baseless nonsense and a perfect example of WP:POINT. We got Kurt topic banned from RfA and DougTech's opposes have an even worse criteria: "I'm going to oppose everyone". Why he shouldn't be topic banned as well is beyond me. — sephiroth bcr 05:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. While such opposes are not helpful, they are also harmless. So I do not see any reason for a topic ban. Ruslik (talk) 05:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Quite why WP:SOAP is thrown out of the window with RfA is beyond me. It's disruptive, annoying and influences nobody. Individual RfAs are supposed to be comments on individual editors, not on the process. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support, enough is enough, these opposes are ridiculous and damaging to some candidates. The fact that they are ignored by crats gives me more mind to ban them entirely rather than ignore them; one thing I notice is that if you ignore something, it will only grow.  GARDEN  10:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support. The burden should be on him to give better arguments, not on everyone else to ignore his canned, impersonal opposes. Since he shows no sign of improving, we should not continue to allow him to invite off-topic commentary in each individual RfA, as Majorly notes in the proposal and Timmeh restates below in his response to DGG. Since newer RfA participants may not know the pattern, repeating an invalid rationale over and over is potentially disruptive, and I think there is harm in continuing to provide the opportunity for that. — TKD::{talk} 11:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support Ban His argument is not specific to each candidate, which is the point of RFA's. Until he gains consensus in talk pages, RFC's, etc. that we do, in fact, have too many admins and RFA should be suspended, his blanket voting is disruptive. The fact that he responds with incivility, personal attacks and ignoring questions when someone asks what he dislikes about particular candidates he has opposed shows he is at best disrupting Misplaced Pages to make a point and at worst trolling. The Seeker 4 Talk 11:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Why we tolerate trolls for so long is beyond me, lets not tolerate this one for any longer. ~ Ameliorate! 11:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support - pointiness aside, it's a drama magnet. Not worth our time, but here we are. Xavexgoem (talk) 11:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support: This user is going way too far pushing this point. Although the RFA comments are probably harmless and will be considered plain ridiculous by the closing 'crat, the edit warring shows that he's going even further than that. He can say there are enough admins as much as he wants, and he can try to convince others through discussion. But trying to force or fool others into believing his view through behaviour like this, however far fetched and ridiculous, is completely unacceptable. Chamal 11:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support — This has been going on for a while and needs to be dealt with; roux and Reyk nailed it: POINT, and bad faith; +WP:DISRUPT. I agree with most of the "supports" G'day, Jack Merridew 12:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per my support of the alternative proposal. hmwithτ 12:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• Are you Joking??? or oppose I guess. What's this?? Votes for banning all over again??? This must be the most stupid proposal that I have seen in ages. Fringe votes like this don't have any material outcome on RFAs and I seem to recall that we have been here before with Kurt Weber. Suppressing fringe views in internal discussions is simply the first stage in imposing group think on our deliberations. Ridiculous. Shame on everyone supporting this nonsense. Just ignore them and explain to RFA candidates that the 'crats ignore the vote anyway. Spartaz 12:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

  Discussion has been attempted, if you take a look at his talk page and archives. He seems to have a wrong image of the administrator system, and is apparently not ready to listen to anything against his beliefs. Instead of mocking the proposal and its supporters, it would be helpful if you explained your view on this better. Chamal 13:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

  So what if you tried reasoning with them. It doesn't matter. Just ignore them and they will go away or at least its less disruptive then trying to ban them. Their contribution makes absolutely ZERO impact on promotions and banning someone from contributing simply because you don't like the opinion they are expressing represents pure groupthink. I'd agree wholeheartedly with a ban if they were the ones pushing the issue but the drama all seems to be down to people who don't like the opinion. Well, they are the ones disrupting the project not him. Spartaz 14:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support Whilst I suppose one !vote isn't really relevant, it throws out the RFA percentage stats which quite often people look at. This sounds a bit WP:SLIPPERYSLOPE, but if we let DT carry on with this, there's nothing to stop even more disruptive non-votes clogging up the system. This should've been dealt with when it was Kurt doing it - let's not pass up a second chance to sort it out. (And that goes for anyone who starts doing it on the support side as well). If this was someone spamming AfDs they would have been blocked by now - we don't need to do that, but we do need a topic ban. Black Kite 13:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose: new consensuses are developed via just this sort of process.
  1. Claims that "well, the bureaucrats ignore this anyway, so it's safe to suppress" without evidence to that effect (and as far as I know, the 'crats tend not to discuss this sort of thing) are thinly-veiled statements of "I don't like this, shut him up."
  2. Claims that the discussion be redirected to talk space smack of "I don't like it, but the 'crats might be paying attention, shut him up."
  3. Claims that WP:POINT applies are unfounded. Is he making a point? Yes. Is there disruption? No. Dougs is non-confrontational in his approach.

  Ultimately, either we have an opinion being ignored by the 'crats, in which case it is no great trial to expect all RFA participants to be mature enough to tolerate its presence, or we have an opinion, properly presented, being considered. Unless someone can prove the former, this ban proposal (or others like it, as below) has no place. — Lomn 13:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

  "Votes based on too many admins were immediately thrown out, of course.".  GARDEN  14:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

  In that event, I withdraw the bulk of my objections. I still note that expecting all RFA participants to behave around controversial comments isn't a high hurdle. — Lomn 14:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support per above. At some point, AGF stops becoming what we have to listen to, and common sense becomes it instead. DougsTech is free to express his opinion on WT:RFA. "RfA/X User" is meant to be a discussion, not a vote, and if DougsTech is unwilling to agree with this, there is no point in continuing to allow this. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 14:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support - I've been putting up with this for a while, and it's gone on for too long. Xclamation point 14:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support per NW. DougsTech is by far not the only mass-opposer I've heard of, but his reasoning seems to be aimed at the wrong venue. RfA is meant to judge the user's fitness to be an admin, not the encyclopedia's need for admins. This is clearly WP:POINT-y behavior. —Admiral Norton 14:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose This is why we have crats. Let him give his opinion and let the crat weigh it.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Kind of weakishly reluctanltishly support It's a fantastically stupid opinion and since it's systematic we could almost assign a bot to adding it when an RfA goes live. But there's also a longstanding (though misguided) tradition to let anyone say whatever the heck they want on RfAs. The problem is that since RfAs are thankfully not the sole territory of RfA regulars, every occurrence of "too many administrators currently" either creates a long list of "what???" replies or forces someone to add "don't worry, there's a long thread on WT:RFA about this and crats will disregard the opinion". Since nobody really takes his opinion seriously, it's a useless distraction in a process which clearly could do without distractions. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 15:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose too many threads at AN. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Second Choice (stolen from ArbCom :P). I don't think it is a good option above, but... Anyway, I have seen enough stray comments from Doug to suggest that he either has or will operate another account if there were any blocks or the rest on him, so I have no confidence that such a topic ban would do anything but possibly drive him to continuing it on another name in a more subtle manner. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support User is clearly not evaluating individual candidates, this trolling has gone on too long. ϢereSpielChequers 15:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Everyone is allowed a !vote and I see no reason to strike a !vote just because you don't like it. Striking oppose !votes is a dangerous trend because it discourages others from opposing and should be done very carefully. How about a swing by some of the articles needing attention instead? --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 15:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Just ignore him for pete's sake. It's a protest vote. We get it. The 'crats get it. If he feels like stuffing that onto every RfA, then it's his time to waste, just pass along to the next one and carry on with life. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Ignore him per Tony Fox. This whole discussion is just feeding a troll.--Aervanath (talk) 16:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Neutral — Although the bureaucrats can not-vote a not-vote (?), if the same thing happened with AfD, where someone added to every AfD, "*Delete – too many articles already," people would go batty and be ready for a lynchin'. It all goes back to don't disrupt wikipedia to make a point. One user is ignorable, but if it grows to levels where 10 people are always adding stuff like "too many admins" or "self-noms are prima facie evidence of the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand," then it's a bit silly, and I have a strange feeling everyone else will agree if it ever got to that point. That said, one person trolling by stating something clearly incorrect—that we have too many admins, as opposed to not enough—would likely favor the candidate, so in reality, that kind of an oppose vote is really more of a support. :P --slakr 16:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support While I defended Kurt's right to !vote as he deemed fit, I have to oppose these pointy !votes of DougsTech. The big difference is that Kurt's !votes were about the candidate and some perceived imperfection with the candidate themself. Kurt was able to defend his position on why he felt that a specific candidate wasn't qualified based upon his sense of what he was looking for. Doug's !vote has nothing to do with the candidate, but a belief that we don't need more admins. If Doug wishes to rally about how there are too many admins, he can do so, just not on individual RfA/RfB's where he is being disruptive/pointy.---I'm Spartacus! 16:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support per the above voters, especially Black Kite. I personally believe from secondhand observations that most Misplaced Pages administrators are overburdened and that we could solve the problem by appointing a lot more of them, and the declining rate of new admin promotion worries me. But I would not vote for someone whom I feel would become a problematic administrator simply to increase the number of administators, and each time I vote in an RfA I give the specific reasons why I would like to see each candidate be promoted or denied so that the other voters and the bureaucrats may find value in my vote. (Note though that I am somewhat new to RfA, having made only six votes, and have not yet voted Oppose, as all of the candidates whom I really wouldn't trust have been snowed out fairly early on. But the rationale I give above is a principle I hold myself to.) Soap /_{Contributions} 16:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Your support for this topic ban has virtually no relation to DougsTech. As such, it is every bit as valid as DougsTech's opposes on RfAs. Could you please provide a reason why DougsTech should be banned from RfA? If it is because he is opposing because he thinks there are too many admins, then would you support banning anyone from RfA who thinks there are too many admins? --Hammersoft (talk) 17:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I thought I had explained myself better. I'm highlighting the difference between someone who believes there are too many administrators and votes Oppose based on the merits of each individual candidate, versus someone who believes there are too many administrators and votes Oppose based on that rationale alone, ignoring the respective pros and cons of each candidate. I would not support the banning of anyone in the former category, but would support banning anyone in the latter category. Soap /_{Contributions} 18:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Strong oppose, just as I opposed restrictions on Kurt Weber regarding his votes. My arguments are the same as of others opposing this above, which means under normal circumstances I would not take the time to comment duplicatively here, but since there has been such unseemly haste to mark this resolved and a topic ban implemented, it seems important to register disagreement. Martinp (talk) 17:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support. This is completely different from Kurt Weber's input, which was based on the candidate. Given that the closing 'crats routinely ignore these "votes", the best case outcome is that this editor's contributions to RfA are utterly useless. The only other likely outcome is disruption and distraction from discussing the candidate at hand - recall that the purpose of an RfA is to determine whether or not the community trusts the candidate not to abuse the tools. Now, if DougsTech has a sincere belief that there are too many admins, he should pick an appropriate forum (e.g. WT:RFA or the Village Pump) and start trying to convince people of his position with arguments, logic, statistics... something. Nobody is being silenced - if anything, such a discussion is to be welcomed. Perhaps the process of gaining - or losing - the bit will be improved as a result. But individual candidates' RfA pages are not the place for that discussion. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 18:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support ban editors who disrupt this project and doesn't contribute much to the building of the encyclopedia should be banned. Secret 19:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support a topic ban from individual RfAs and RfBs (but not from WT:RFA). I think the opposition makes many good points, but where they fail is that they're not reading what the supporters are actually writing. No one thinks that anyone should be muzzled for being disagreeable, but a topic ban is the traditional and acceptable way to deal with persistent, dogged FORUMSHOPping. Dougstech is welcome to argue his case for getting rid of all the admins and replacing us with something else (he hasn't said what, yet), perhaps at WP:VPP, but that's the only argument he's indicated he's interested in, so far, and that has nothing to do with individual RFAs. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 19:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support Ban from WP:RFA, WP:RFB, and WT:RFA, as well as from making RFA/B related comments on a canidate's talk page. The ban should be indefinite until re-discussed.--Ipatrol (talk) 20:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Is this a joke? I didn't realize having an unpopular, or even unfounded, opinion was grounds for a banning. And the peoeple who think this is a violation of WP:POINT are missing the point that one of the criteria of WP:POINT is that the action is disruptive. Voting in a vote (let's face it, it's a vote) is not disruptive even if it's based on a factually suspect opinion that nobody agrees with. -Chunky Rice (talk) 20:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. Those pushing for a RfX ban are seeking to silence dissent. Misguided dissent, maybe, but bureaucrats have the discretion to ignore his vote. This ban will have a chilling effect on RfA opposes at a time when potential (and current) administrators need more, and not less, scrutiny than in the past. As someone who has voiced unpopular opinions at RfA, I have to wonder whether I'll be next. Perhaps that's the intent. Skinwalker (talk) 21:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

  Of course potential admins need scrutiny, although not too much as adminship is not a big deal. But DougsTech is not opposing based on the individual candidates, he's template opposing based on an unrelated reason and not explaining his stance. As I've said before, the oppose section of each individual RFA is not the place to be making a point about the total number of admins. That belongs on WT:RFA. There are plenty of valid reasons to topic ban this person without including the fact that the facts and an overwhelming majority of Wikipedians disagree with his view. Timmeh! 22:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

  I'm going to digress for a moment and express what I expect to be a very unpopular opinion. "Not a big deal" is, IMO, a antiquated and harmful canard that needs to be put to rest. If it were not a big deal, adminship could be easily removed, not tied up in gigabytes of endless discussion and arbitration only to result in a "strongly urged" decision. If it were not a big deal, discretionary sanctions that allow individual admins to abrogate consensus would not exist. If it were not a big deal, we wouldn't have habitual sockpuppeteers spending months or years grooming accounts for RfA. Since Misplaced Pages is one of the first terms that come up in a google search on a given topic, administrative control over this site and who has it is a very, very serious topic. One or two bad admins can (and do) hijack articles and skew them away from mainstream, encyclopedic coverage. People read these articles and consider them fact. It's not just silly buggers with high-school vandal whack-a-mole anymore. Adminship is most certainly a big deal. But I digress. I don't see anything in your comment that touches on my concern about chilling effects on oppose !voting. Skinwalker (talk) 22:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Considering some of the reasons that are put forth to oppose RfAs, Doug's predictable opinion is hardly a cause for concern. Pastor Theo (talk) 22:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support per NuclearWarfare. It is a POINTy oppose and the very kind of thing we want to avoid at RfA. Enigma 22:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Alternate proposal

While I oppose the above proposal, why make it a topic ban? Why prevent him from expressing his thoughts altogether? If the concern is solely an "oppose because we have too many admins", why restrict him from commenting in RfAs altogether? So, why not make a blanket ban on "opposing because of too many admins" from any editor and allow DougTech to participate in RfAs so long as he uses different arguments that do focus on specific candidates? Again, I don't believe anyone should be restricted, but I think we should not prevent any editor from commenting in RfAs altogether. Best, --A Nobody 02:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Not a bad idea, but the argument itself isn't flawed... there could, at some point, be too many admins. Maybe there are too many now, and maybe there are too few. Dougstech makes this vote blind, and without ever supporting his assertion, even when challenged. Hiberniantears (talk) 02:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

This would be fine, but my senses tell me that the user will simply pick another phrase to template each RFA with. I think stricter is better, to be honest. Majorly talk 02:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

He would find another phrase to oppose on. "Additional administrators are not needed"?  iMatthew :  Chat  02:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

No, the editor obviously does not have any intention of commenting on a candidate's ability/non-ability to be a good admin. He has no reason to if he believes there should not be any more admins. He would either rephrase his comment or oppose without a stated reason. Timmeh! 02:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, editors support without a stated reason, so why not allow editors to oppose without a stated reason? Sincerely, --A Nobody 02:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

When someone supports an RFA without a stated reason, it is basically shorthand for "I agree with the nominating statement". When you oppose, there should be a valid reason why you don't think the candidate in question should have the tools. Timmeh! 02:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Yeah, I'm not a huge fan of rationale-less supports myself, but usually these are intended as, and interpreted as, tacit agreement with the nominator's statements. Reyk _YO! 02:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

You know one thing I always find confusing about RfAs is is it supposed to be a discussion or a vote? I feel similarly with AfDs, but at least those are more apt to be discussion oriented, but really in both cases, we are told they are not votes, yet they look like lists of bold faced support/oppose and keep/delete, i.e. votes rather than actual threaded and interactive discussion and it seems that some get overly defensive when challenged, which is disheartening because in an academic discourse, people should challenge each other and be open to being challenged in order to reach a more nuanced conclusion. Nevertheless, in both cases, we seem to have something in between. So, it should be made more clear that we either bring something new to the table and have a discussion in these things and pure votes be discouraged or we just let everything be fair game. Sincerely, --A Nobody 03:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

It should be discussion-based, not vote-based. There should be at least a rough consensus among the participants to grant the candidate adminship. In almost every RFA, there is at least one discussion in the oppose section, initiated when a user disagreed with an oppose reason. Opposes are made in response to the nominating statement/candidate's answers to questions, and comments are then made in response to those. I have seen some very heated discussions in the oppose section of RFAs in the past, and the RFA nominating process is definitely not just a vote-and-it's-over-with deal. Anyway, I think we've delved a bit too much off-topic. Timmeh! 03:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• Do not support: I view ban proposals as prima facie evidence of power hunger. seicer | talk | contribs 03:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• Ignore it entirely, as I'm sure the crats do also. Its not worth interfering. If you do not let yourself get bothered, and do not respond to it, there is very little problem. I'm very reluctant to censor pointy people, as long as they do not actually disrupt things. DGG (talk) 03:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

  The problem is that he is disrupting things. By making the comment, he invites the questions of many editors who have not seen the original discussion on his RFA votes and causes more controversy, which is centered on the RFA page. And the RFA page is for discussing the RFA candidate, not whether there are too many admins or whether DougsTech's votes are legitimate. Timmeh! 03:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose per above. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I personally just ignore Doug's "!votes", as I suspect the closers do. To be honest, I'm surprised I haven't seen the !vote struck with an "Invalid argument" edit summary yet. I can understand the disruption arguments listed here, but unless there is reason enough to suspect that Doug's Tech is actually a "Sock-o-Kurt", (and open a WP:SPI), then procedure should be followed. Were Doug's !votes the only issue, I could see my way clear to an "Oppose" as far as the ban. On the other side of the fence, we have the template edit waring, and he's received a proper level-1 warning (without being templated). He's obviously attempted to make a WP:POINT, and with this and this editing, it appears to me that he's now attempting to game the system. My understanding is that a level-2 warning would now be appropriate. The community should not be too quick to block or ban simply because they don't like something - we all have a voice here, regardless of how ill-informed, it may be. Follow procedure, issue the warnings, block when needed, and if the disruption continues then open a Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User conduct to discuss a proper ban. IMHO. — Ched :  ?  05:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. Per my oppose in the above section. Ruslik (talk) 05:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Whilst I don't think Douglas is a troll of any kind, he does seem to be trying to make a WP:POINT that would be better served via the RFA talkpages and perhaps the Village Pump or some other venue; continuing on individuals RFAs seems disruptive now, his point has been acknowledged. Skinny87 (talk) 07:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per my support of the topic ban, above. G'day, Jack Merridew 12:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support Even when it's an issue, it still shouldn't be discussed at individual RfAs. Those are simply for judging whether or not the candidate will abuse the tools if entrusted with them. hmwithτ 12:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

  If he can't bring it up there, no one should... and this shouldn't be just for this phrase. This should be for any phrase that doesn't directly have to do with the editor. hmwithτ 12:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• Are you Joking??? or oppose I guess. What's this?? Votes for banning all over again??? This must be the most stupid proposal that I have seen in ages. Fringe votes like this don't have any material outcome on RFAs and I seem to recall that we have been here before with Kurt Weber. Suppressing fringe views in internal discussions is simply the first stage in imposing group think on our deliberations. Ridiculous. Shame on everyone supporting this nonsense. Just ignore them and explain to RFA candidates that the 'crats ignore the vote anyway. Spartaz 12:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

There is an important difference between fringe views, and those which are merely unsubstantiated views. DougsTech only posits an unsubstantiated point of view, and is unwilling to back it up with any evidence whatsoever. That is not fringe, it is unsubstantiated, and offensive to the individual RfA candidates. Hiberniantears (talk) 14:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

And all this drama is justified by a meaningless and ignored line in RFAs?? Hmmm... Spartaz 15:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes. A little drama here is entirely preferred to constant drama in each new RfA, with a repetitious cycle of the next new goober coming up with some ridiculous attention getting blanket oppose. Hiberniantears (talk) 16:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Everyone is allowed a !vote and I see no reason to strike a !vote just because you don't like it. Striking oppose !votes is a dangerous trend because it discourages others from opposing and should be done very carefully. How about a swing by some of the articles needing attention instead? --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 15:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

  The reason we don't like it is because it is unsubstantiated, has nothing to do with the qualifications of the candidate in question, and is copy/pasted in just about every single RFA, attracting unknowing editors asking about it and causing controversy until someone explains that DougsTech always does that. It is obvious trolling and violation of WP:POINT. Timmeh! 15:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

  Then just ignore it. No one is harmed by a generic oppose that will not be considered by a crat. This bland oppose is meaningless and not worth the time you guys are putting into it. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 15:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• This user's opposes are valid and presented civily (It's not "prima facie evidence of personal attack removed"). This is not votes for banning, I remember when that was done away with. Get over it. Hipocrite (talk) 16:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

  I'm not exactly sure an RFA oppose can be valid when it is an oppose based on the RFA process in general and has nothing to do with the RFA candidate. If I opposed simply because "Misplaced Pages sucks", would that be valid as well? Should the bureaucrats take that into consideration for determining consensus? Timmeh! 16:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

  No and no. It's not valid because wikipedia sucking or not sucking has no bearing on why someone should be promoted to adminstrator. If we had too many admins, we should not promote more admins, so the promotion of this admin is more likley to be a mistake. Beyond this, I doubt that DT's opposes will be taken seriously in any edge-case close by a 'crat. Of course, if he were to be stopped from !voting oppose everywhere, some other user might just decide that I "just can't trust this user with the tools, sorry," in every RFA. What would you do then, ban him? Perhaps he's just not a trusting kind of person? How about "sorry, untill adminstrative recall is fixed and we can remove admins, making more admins is cruising for a bruising?" Just because DT can't write a good blanket oppose doesn't mean blanket opposes are all equally invalid. Hipocrite (talk) 17:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

  Hipocrite makes a very valid point. If !voters can't say what they think, they'll just !vote in the oppose column with some acceptable statement instead. Where will that leave us - cosmetically happy, I suppose, but in some meaning less place as far as the RfA process is concerned. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 18:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose- I fear that if we did that, DougsTech would come out with opposes like, "Oppose- candidate missed filling in an edit summary in 2005. Also, too many administrators currently." The truth is that you can't force people to judge a candidate fairly. If DougsTech gets banned from RfA and then has a change of heart and genuinely wants to make constructive contributions there, then we could always review the ban. I don't support imposing a half-way ban that would probably just be gamed anyway. Reyk _YO! 21:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't like your idea! Ban you!

First they came for the opposers based on too many admins. Then they came for the opposers based on suffrage. Then they came for the opposers based on block history.

Don't you people have enough to do without worrying about a silly opposer that is ignored by bureaucrats anyway? What the hell is the problem here? Has anyone actually found an RfA that was swayed by the unsupported argument that there are too many admins?

Go tilt at some other windmill please and sell crazy somewhere else. We're all stocked up here. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

What she said. BurnBan the witch! Mahalo. --Ali'i 15:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I can't believe it's even necessary to have to voice support for the above. Skomorokh 16:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

You miss the point entirely. His opinion is only relevant to this discussion to the point that it has nothing to do with the candidate. If he was opposing every candidate because its 2009, or any other random reason that has nothing to do with the candidate it would be just as disruptive. RFA isn't an anything-goes, free speech zone. If there's consensus that your comments are unhelpful and multiple people ask you to stop, you should. This is a collaborative project. If someone is entirely unable or unwilling to work with others, we don't keep them around just because the negative aspects aren't too bad. The fact that we put up with crap like this for so long is one the reasons we lose good contributors and have trouble keeping new ones; we're more willing to put up with trolls than we are to create a decent editing environment. Forget "collegial," at this point I'd settle for "not shit." Mr.Z-man 17:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

In what way is it disruptive? The only disruption I see is caused by nonsense like this, making a fuss about nothing. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, excellent Mr.Z-man. Thank you for your commentary. Would you please be so kind as to direct me to an RfA whose outcome was swayed by the vote of DougsTech? Failing that, would you please come up with ANY rationale as to how this is a problem other than you don't like his vote? He is welcome to his opinion you know. He thinks there are too many admins. Solution; don't promote any more admins. It's a perfectly reasonable vote, and he is HARDly unprecedented. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Why does the outcome have to be swayed? If someone trolled every thread on ANI or every AFD discussion with some inane repetitive comment it wouldn't change the outcome of those, but we'd almost certainly do something about it other than ignore encourage it. Though I do have to agree with MZMcBride, threads like this, where we admit something is trolling but decide to allow it anyway, because its just RFA and RFA is supposed to represent the project at its worst, are far more disruptive and discourage and drive away far more users than the trolling itself. Mr.Z-man 18:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Keep schools are notable. Hipocrite (talk) 18:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Merge per the two above posts. Otherwise, salt and delete. Enigma 22:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Malleus, Hammersoft, et al. Threads like these are far more disruptive than these votes could ever possibly be. And, frankly, DougsTech's trolling is working expertly by causing all of this. If the votes really bother you that much, I'm sure it would be possible to create a JavaScript script of some sort that hides the votes for you. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

RFC/U?

Not to be a party-pooper (actually, yeah), but has anyone considered an WP:RFC/U on the user as opposed to going here? MuZemike 14:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

It would have been nice to save some time and effort here. However it may just come to that. Chillum 14:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

If there is no consensus here, we can move to the next stage in the process. However, in my opinion, there is clear consensus this user is a problem, and a net negative to RFA. Majorly talk 14:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, because if there isnt a consensus here to ban them you can simply keep shopping this to another forum in the hope that you can get someone to ban them elsewhere. Honestly, haven't you got enough feedback on what people think from this already? Sheesh. Spartaz 15:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

And that's the problem with this entire discussion. Skipping the "triple dare" and going right to the "triple dog dare". I said "as opposed to coming here" as in "this topic ban discussion should never have started here until at the very least an RFC been tried". Process is important, especially in cases like this. I am in no way encouraging forum shopping. I would rather have users sit down and discuss this in a (hopefully) constructive manner without degenerating to straw polls and having the tyranny of the majority participate in the apparent witch-burning that is going on right now. MuZemike 17:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

There can be consensus that what he is doing is inappropriate without there being a consensus that there should be a topic ban. If we can't decide what to do, we can at least agree that this is not productive behavior. A topic ban is not the only way to stop disruptive editing. Chillum 14:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• I cant see the problem. It just requires an RFA regular to append a comment linking to an essay somewhere for non-regulars to get the drift. And, if they don't, it's a very illuminating way of measuring what those responding are really like behind their screens. He may be a gadfly but occasionally gadflies are useful. Spartaz 15:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Although in this case, said gadfly deserves a good swatting. Hiberniantears (talk) 16:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Spartaz 16:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

←re: MuZemike question about RFC/U: Yes, I mentioned it here. It seems however that a mob mentality has taken root, the drama has increased 10-fold, and I'm not sure much can be done to stem the tide. Proper procedure, as I understand it, from our policy and guideline pages appears to have cast to the wind. I was under the impression when I joined that all editors were to be treated equally, I'm not as secure in that belief as I once was. Make no mistake, I strongly disagree with Doug's conclusions, but I must support his right to voice his opinion. It occurs to me that this "topic ban" vote, (without the !) has created much more drama and disruption than the collective "Too many admins already" posts which apparently the closing 'crats tend to disregard anyway. — Ched :  ?  18:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• • Some are more equal than others. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, I forget sometimes that the proper procedure for trolls is to allow it and encourage them. Silly me, I thought people were supposed to not be disruptive. Mr.Z-man 18:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
    • If it truly is "trolling", then threads like this massive "ban" drama achieve their desired results, rather then the WP:DENY that is a suggest course of action. imho — Ched :  ?  18:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The reverse

I don't see how the "oppose as there are too many admins" is worse than the numerous "support as there are not enough admins" that have been popping up in seeming retaliation. Would be deliberately sarcastic and mocking of another user's stance be the greater concern? Sincerely, --A Nobody 17:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Until there are no admin backlogs whatsoever on a consistent basis, any claims there are too many admins are simply misinformed. I have personally never seen anyone template the same support rationale of needing more admins - perhaps this is because supporting someone is generally seen as a more positive thing to do, and therefore does not get questioned. People simply aren't as affected when it's a supporting rationale. Additionally, supporting generally indicates you agree with the nomination, so perhaps it's simply an addendum to the vote. Majorly talk 18:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, we need to block these people immediately. Trolls are precious resources, we need to protect them. Mr.Z-man 18:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe A Nobody is talking about this in particular. No opinion on discussion. — neuro 18:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

One of those was altered, when challenged, to "Sense of humor fail. I have no reason to not trust him". SHEFFIELDSTEEL 19:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Sweet, I'm back on AN! :-\ It was a joke, I know some are immune to laughing, but some aren't.  iMatthew :  Chat  19:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

If people are supporting candidates for reasons that are nothing to do with the candidate, then I would hope that (a) other contributors would challenge them (b) the 'crats would ignore them and (c) people would ask them to stop. If that has happened and there is still a problem, then we can consider taking further action. I have to say that it seems like DougsTech has got past that point already. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 19:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

(a) has happened many, many times. (b) has happened and continues to happen (c) I believe DougsTech has been asked to stop, but hasn't, claiming his "right" to an opinion. He has definitely gotten past that point and is continuing to disrupt the RFA process. I still don't understand why some have a problem with taking a privilege away from a disruptive editor. Timmeh! 19:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the need for more admins has been a common !vote for as long as I've been invovled with RfA. As for why it is different... it goes back to the very principle that we've always expected rationale reasons to oppose, but that support is the default barring reason not to promote.---I'm Spartacus! 19:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

You have a point. I suppose there is an unspoken "per nom" inherent in a support. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 19:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Designated drafting arbitrators

To assist with managing case workflow, and to provide a default point of contact for case matters, the initials of the designated drafting arbitrator(s) for each case will now be displayed on {{ArbComOpenTasks}} next to those of the designated clerk(s) for that case.

This proposal was approved by a 10/0 vote, with no abstentions:

• Support: Carcharoth, Coren, FayssalF, FloNight, John Vandenberg, Kirill Lokshin, Rlevse, Roger Davies, Vassyana, Wizardman
• Oppose: None
• Abstain: None
• Not voting: Casliber, Cool Hand Luke, Newyorkbrad, Risker, Sam Blacketer, Stephen Bain

Discuss this

Cross-posted on behalf of the Arbitration Committee, hmwithτ 02:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Greer Honeywill entry

I have created a page for Greer Honeywill (artist) but when I type Greer Honeywill in the search box, it doesn't show. I therefore need a Greer Honeywill page that redirects to Greer Honeywill (artist); OR I need to remove the word (artist) from the heading. Please help.

I have created the page for you. Happy editing! Firestorm 02:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Indefinitely semi-protected user talk pages

See Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)#Indefinitely semi-protected user talk pages: should policy require an unprotected subpage? –xeno (talk) 02:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Gouryella bad images

This user User talk:Gouryella keeps on uploading bad images with fake license information. He has had many of his images deleted many times, but keeps uploading them. Why doesn't he stop? He takes images from other sites and says they are public domain or creative commons like this File:68-gouryella3.jpg or this File:Kamaya+Painters.jpg or this File:R34-GTR-RB26-.jpg. He has been warned almost 70 times, shouldn't he be blocked for clearly having no interest in following Misplaced Pages licenses? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.222.144.44 (talk) 07:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Notified him. Going to bed right now, but it looks like he was last warned to stop uploading images in September 2008 and has since then pulled up a dozen or more new problems. It's clear he's just screwing around (there's no reason to believe that Last.fm is now Creative Commons at File:Kamaya+Painters.jpg). I'd suggest a final warning and a check of his work, or even just a block until he realizes we are serious about this stuff. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

User:PONDHEEPANKAR is back???

I strongly feel that User:PONDHEEPANKAR who was banned for using 18 sockpuppets is now back. Please have a look at this where User:Onlynms is indulging in POV-pushing in Kongu Vellalar article. The article is full of blatant WP:OR and apart from a few external links to Kongu Vellalar organisations, there are no references at all. -The Enforcer_{Office of the secret service} 07:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I see the similarities, but PONDHEEPANKAR was blocked in 2007, and the latest socks (confirmed or suspected) in the block log are well over a year old (February 2008). If this is the first incident of this type on Kongu Vellalar organizations since then, I would assume good faith and warn the user. That being said, if the pattern continues, a report at WP:ANI would probabally be the route to go (I'm not sure if sockpuppet investigations would be able to do much at this point, since checkuser evidence would be stale, and this isn't a long-term, serious pattern of vandalism anymore.) Keep in mind I'm not actually an admin though (disclaimer!) I just saw your comment and put my two cents in, if any sysops feel strongly another way, please feel free to say so and disregard my comments. -Senseless!... says you, says me 19:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOT

User:Juliancolton has protected WP:NOT for three days over edit warring. I've asked Julian to unprotect, but he declined. He offered me the opportunity to unprotect, but I declined because I am involved. We then agreed I could bring the issue here. I don't think we really are edit warring. There's fruitful discussion on the talk page, and most participants are tweaking and revising rather than reverting. It's all very well saying discuss it on the talk page, but unless you can edit the page, you aren't going to get further input. I think we're all working with WP:CONSENSUS, especially "Consensus as a result of the editing process" and File:Consensus Flowchart.svg. We're mostly trying to improve the text communally. We are not repeatedly reverting each others contributions, we're amending them. Anyway, have a look at the history of the page and the discussion on the talk page. I don;t think it is as heated as you would expect to see if an edit war were being waged, but I may be wrong. Appreciate any input. Thanks. Hiding T 14:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• I just want to get across, I'm not calling into question Julian's use of the tools, I think he's acted admirably throughout our little disagreement and within an admin's remit. Hiding T 14:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• Three days of full protection doesn't seem excessive given the amount of reverting that was going on. (Half of the 14 edits in the 48 hours prior to the protection were reverts). People are disputing the 'Plot summaries' section, which consists of 40 words. Can't they draft up alternate versions of that paragraph and try to get a consensus for one of them on the Talk page? If so I imagine Juliancolton would undo the protection. EdJohnston (talk) 17:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• I'd certainly agree to that. –Juliancolton |  19:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I guess it's a philosophical issue. I can remember the days when we treated the policy itself as a draft and edited and discussed until we found the right balance. I guess we're not encouraged to do that anymore. My bad. Apologies to Julian. Hiding T 20:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Block problems

Looks like we have a problem at the moment. Anyone know anything about this? Hiberniantears (talk) 15:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Never mind. I just blocked someone. Appears to be resolved. Hiberniantears (talk) 15:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Redressing grievances (MZMcBride)

If you feel I've wronged you or the project in some way, please feel free to comment at User talk:MZMcBride#Redressing grievances. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards