Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:16, 13 February 2012

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

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

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

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

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

Template:Active editnotice

This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared.

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 38 as Misplaced Pages:Closure requests/Archive 37 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

Archives

Index no archives yet (create)

This page has archives. Sections older than 2 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

• WP:CR
• WP:RFCL
• WP:ANRFC

Use the closure requests noticeboard to ask an uninvolved editor to assess, summarize, and formally close a Misplaced Pages discussion. Do so when consensus appears unclear, it is a contentious issue, or where there are wiki-wide implications (e.g. any change to our policies or guidelines).

Do not list discussions where consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.

Move on – do not wait for someone to state the obvious. In some cases, it is appropriate to close a discussion with a clear outcome early to save our time.

Do not post here to rush the closure. Also, only do so when the discussion has stabilised.

On the other hand, if the discussion has much activity and the outcome isn't very obvious, you should let it play out by itself. We want issues to be discussed well. Do not continue the discussion here.

There is no fixed length for a formal request for comment (RfC). Typically 7 days is a minimum, and after 30 days the discussion is ripe for closure. The best way to tell is when there is little or no activity in the discussion, or further activity is unlikely to change its result.

When the discussion is ready to be closed and the outcome is not obvious, you can submit a brief and neutrally worded request for closure.

Include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing easier. Move discussions go in the 'other types' section.

Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.

Closing discussions carries responsibility, doubly so if the area is contentious. You should be familiar with all policies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion (consult your draft closure at the discussions for discussion page if unsure). Be prepared to fully answer questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that editors may have.

Non-admins can close most discussions. Admins may not overturn your non-admin closures just because you are not an admin, and this is not normally in itself a problem at reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would need tools or edit permissions you do not have access to. Articles for deletion and move discussion processes have more rules for non-admins to follow.

If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here. Instead follow advice at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.

Other areas tracking old discussions

• Misplaced Pages:Requested moves#Elapsed listings
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Old
• Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion
• Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure
• Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion#Old discussions
• Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion#Old business
• Misplaced Pages:Proposed mergers/Log
• Misplaced Pages:Proposed article splits

Administrative discussions

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive367#Close challenge for Talk:1948 Arab–Israeli War#RFC for Jewish exodus

(Initiated 27 days ago on 13 December 2024) challenge of close at AN was archived nableezy - 05:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Sander.v.Ginkel unblock request

(Initiated 25 days ago on 15 December 2024) voorts (talk/contributions) 00:55, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading

Requests for comment

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/In the news criteria amendments

(Initiated 94 days ago on 7 October 2024) Tough one, died down, will expire tomorrow. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 459#RFC_Jerusalem_Post

(Initiated 73 days ago on 28 October 2024) Participation/discussion has mostly stopped & is unlikely to pick back up again. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

 Note: This is a contentious topic and subject to general sanctions. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.  22:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Genocide#RfC: History section, adding native American and Australian genocides as examples

(Initiated 64 days ago on 6 November 2024) RfC expired on 6 December 2024 . No new comments in over a week. Bogazicili (talk) 15:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Team Seas#Re: the ocean pollution additions

(Initiated 55 days ago on 15 November 2024) Clear consensus that the proposed edit (and its amended version) violate WP:SYNTH. However, the owning editor is engaging in sealioning behavior, repeatedly arguing against the consensus and dismissing others' rationale as not fitting his personal definition of synthesis; and is persistently assuming bad-faith, including opening an ANI accusing another editor of WP:STONEWALLING. When finally challenged to give a direct quote from the source that supports the proposed edit, it was dismissed with "I provided the source, read it yourself" and then further accused that editor with bad-faith. The discussion is being driven into a ground by an editor who does not (nor wish to) understand consensus and can't be satisfied with any opposing argument supported by Misplaced Pages policy or guidelines. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 22:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Israel#RfC

(Initiated 48 days ago on 22 November 2024) Legobot has removed the RFC notice. Can we please get an interdependent close. TarnishedPath 23:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RFC_Science-Based_Medicine

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

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

Deletion discussions

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

(Initiated 21 days ago on 20 December 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Arab migrations to the Levant#Merger Proposal

(Initiated 107 days ago on 25 September 2024) Open for a while, requesting uninvolved closure. Andre🚐 22:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Winter fuel payment abolition backlash#Merge proposal

(Initiated 73 days ago on 29 October 2024) There are voices on both sides (ie it is not uncontroversial) so a non-involved editor is needed to evaluate consensus and close this. Thanks. PamD 09:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Israel–Hamas war#Survey

(Initiated 64 days ago on 7 November 2024) Looking for uninvolved close in CTOP please, only a few !votes in past month. I realise this doesn't require closing, but it is preferred in such case due to controversial nature of topic. CNC (talk) 10:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

•  Note: I'm happy to perform the merge if required, as have summarised other sections of this article already with consensus. I realise it's usually expected to perform splits or merges when closing discussions, but in this case it wouldn't be needed. CNC (talk) 20:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Shiv Sena#Merge proposal

(Initiated 43 days ago on 27 November 2024) Discussion seems to have stopped. As the proposal is not uncontroversial, and I, as the initiator, am involved, I am requesting an uninvolved editor to close the discussion. Arnav Bhate (talk • contribs) 11:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading

Discretionary sanctions on caste articles and more

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Community Authorized Discretionary Sanctions on all pages about social groups, explicitly including caste associations and political parties related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 22:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Every editor who has ANI oh his watchlist must know this: articles about Indian castes are particularly sensitive. Unhelpful edits and general disruption (POV-pushing, edit warring, personal attacks etc.) permeate the entire topic area and it is difficult for admins to successfully keep all this in check. For this reason, I'm asking the community to impose the standard set of discretionary sanctions on all pages (changed to "pages" from "all articles and templates" on 19:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)) about social groups, be they castes/communities/tribes/clans/kootams/gotras etc., explictly including caste associations and political parties related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal. Diffs of assorted disruption can be provided upon request. Salvio 17:43, 4 February 2012 (UTC) Edited to specify countries. Lynch7 18:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Salvio 17:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Castes are one thing, and political parties are another thing entirely. Can you explain your reasoning for including the latter in your proposal? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Salvio has been chatting with me and others on my talk page. Many of the political parties are caste-based. The classes listed above have been taken from my suggestion. I've no idea how widely the "article" term applies, but I intended it to include related templates also. - Sitush (talk) 17:52, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I have just added templates to my proposal. The reason I included political parties is because Sitush suggested they should be, because they're often caste based, as he says here. Salvio 17:57, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Politics is very much linked to caste equations, and I think this sanction is needed there as well. Lynch7 17:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. While I accept your points about the linkage between caste and political parties, I can't help feeling that this is nevertheless over-extending things a little. Effectively, you'll be putting all discussion of party politics within the subcontinent under discretionary sanctions, and I think we'd need to be certain that this is really necessary before proceeding. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support - I've been leaning towards this for some time. I dislike the concept of such sanctions but "needs must". NB: I was involved in pre-proposal discussions, per my link above. - Sitush (talk) 18:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support. This is a much needed sanction, regrettable as it is. Lynch7 18:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: It would make sense if you link to evidence of some disputes and tenacious editing, so that participants who are unaware of this can analyze the proposal appropriately. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 18:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Perhaps the recent need for semi-pp at Template:Caste Groups of India (Kongu_Vellalar); practically everything that has gone on at Ezhava, Nair and Yadav during the last 12 months. - Sitush (talk) 18:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Kongu Vellalar has a long history (along with the associated SPIs). Lynch7 18:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Rajput, for a long time but just since Christmas will suffice for an example (includes socks). - Sitush (talk) 18:30, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support.This is needed.Pernoctator (talk) 18:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support - far too many petty disputes regarding this arise time & time again, and it's time we nipped it in the bud. GiantSnowman 18:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Can we say "pages" instead "articles and templates", as well as "general sanctions" instead of "discretionary sanctions"? Minor bureaucratic wording for the latter (DS is generally limited to ArbCom sanctions), but the former is important, I think. NW (Talk) 18:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Regarding the former, go ahead, I have no objections. Regarding the latter, if they are basically the same thing, again I have no objections. I just had never heard about "general sanctions". Salvio 18:47, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• "Pages" is no big deal; WP:General sanctions seems to be rather more than WP:Discretionary sanctions, eg: 1RR. Am I misunderstanding? - Sitush (talk) 19:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• General sanctions does not include 1RR unless an administrator specifically imposes it. The two are identical except for the process by which someone is sanctioned. There is a dedicated noticeboard for discretionary sanctions, but that is "owned" in a sense by the Arbitration Committee and community-based sanctions like the ones being proposed here generally are discussed elsewhere if it is not a unilateral decision. NW (Talk) 20:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Fine by me, then. I was a bit concerned about 1RR because of the number of new users who edit this type of article, coupled with the availability of admins who take an interest. It doesn't matter how manner notices appear at the top of an edit box, newbies in my experience tend to dive right in there. I can see the day when 1RR might become necessary but it would be nice to feel our way forward here. - Sitush (talk) 20:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Actually, I like the concept of "discretionary sanctions", meaning that any admin can unilaterally impose a sanction on someone disrupting Misplaced Pages after warnings have proven to be useless... And I believe that the community has the power to impose them just as much as the Arbitration Committee... Salvio 22:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Woah, I am lost now. One person seems to be saying that the two are for all intents and purposes the same, barring a reporting issue, and another appear to be saying that there is more to it. This is above my (non-admin) pay grade but it seems clear to me that some sort of consensus-based clarification is required. I've read both pages and, as with my comment about 1RR above, there are substantive differences in the wording. Help! - Sitush (talk) 02:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• Dumber than the average bear: I have remained blissfully ignorant of the whole area of discretionary sanctions, and having read the page linked above, I'm not reassured that I want to continue to work on restoring featured articles to status at the WP:FAR pages of articles like Kolkata until I understand what exactly the issue is. I've been questioning a lot of the text at Kolkata as part of the FAR and there are currently three Indian articles at FAR: would some kind person please explain on my talk page or here explicitly and directly what I have to be aware of and avoid? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

  Hmm, is what you are talking directly related to castes? :) Lynch7 19:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

  ummm, I don't think so, in the case of Kolkata text, but it could be in other cases, so generally, what is the issue I need to be aware of? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• POV-pushing, usually in an attempt either to glorify or denigrate a social group; edit-warring generally; repeated insertion of unsourced content/OR etc; repeated violations of BLP re: ethnicity/religion; absurd and extreme personal attacks on talk pages and in edit summaries ... that sort of thing. - Sitush (talk) 19:14, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks, that's all I needed to know. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support Badly needed. Dougweller (talk) 19:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support; a glance at Talk:Burki should tell you about all you need to know. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support but it would be even better if only bastards get the sanctions - I took a look at Burki as suggested by Northern Lights and that is disgusting. Yeah, NPOV and all that... but per my long standing opinion that wikipedia has to stand up for certain values, could admins please do yer best to work within the rules to cut a user who appears to be trying to get rid of the hate more slack than the primitive shits that cause this problem in the first place. Egg Centric 22:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• That would be me, then. Not the primitive shit, but the other fella.<g> - Sitush (talk) 22:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• I think you need to refactor this Egg Centric. It's pretty hard to convince users in these articles that we are dealing fairly with them when editors are calling them "primitive shits". Completely unnecessary. AniMate 22:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

A fair treatment for bigots is far more than a block. The misery they create is enormous. I appreciate that a fair number, if not majority, of the peopel they are harming are also bigots, but this is a developing world problem. Of course they are not shits, they are merely primitive peopel acting like shits. The ones who are not primitive are in fact shits, for then they have no excuse. Egg Centric 22:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I apologise for my levity. I think that AniMate does actually have a fair point. Caste is an extremely difficult concept to grasp if you are outside the system. To those who are then, sure, it has the appearance of bigotry etc but it is a way of life. I do occasionally boil over because (I think, and in the en-Misplaced Pages sense) I can see the wood for the trees but obviously if you are living in that situation then all you see are trees. My lighthearted comment was inappropriate. I had just had "one of those days" dealing with the fall-out. - Sitush (talk) 01:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support with the caveat that any discretionary sanctions need to be applied carefully, as we have some editors doing great work in that area against the POV pushers and we don't want them chased away. AniMate 22:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support I avoid areas like those in question, yet I still see the fallout from the POV warriors. As mentioned by AniMate, admins should go to some extra trouble when confronted with an established editor who is supporting Misplaced Pages's principles—rather than a quick block, please tell them clearly on their talk page (without the official warning) that they must stop for a day or two to avoid sanctions. Johnuniq (talk) 03:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support except that like AndytheGrump, I do not support putting political articles under the sanctions. Yes, some political parties in India are explicitly linked to caste groups, but many are not. To me, that would be like putting US political articles under sanctions because of the existence of the American Third Position Party. As for the general question of why...these articles are just a minefield. The primary problem comes from people in Group X, who want to assert that their Group is descended from high ranking castes, which are themselves descended from high ranking kings, who may very well be descended or related to Gods (this is not an exaggeration--much of the arguments on Yadav (modern group) is whether or not they are directly connected to the Yadava (ancient group) which was mythically founded by Yadu, from whom Krishna is said to be descended). Now, including mythical claims are fine (so long as the mythical connection is covered in reliable secondary sources, and the fact that it's a mythical claim is fine), but the problem is that many editors in these groups refuse to allow anything else in the article, including reliable sources attributing less glorious histories to these groups. Thus, Sitush in particular is often accused of very very heinous things, because he's insisting that our articles actually say what reliable sources say, as opposed to what people may have been taught since they were very young. And there's really nothing we can do in many cases to ease problem editors into Misplaced Pages's culture; some have, and have become great editors (or at least functional ones), but some are simply unwilling to adjust to WP:V and WP:NPOV. In many ways, the area is very similar to the Arab-Israeli conflict, in that one's fundamental world view may simply make one unable to interact comfortably with our rule set. Discretionary sanctions will help (if enforced) keep out the worst of the POV warriors, and allow us to more quickly say, "Please adjust, or please find another site to edit on". Qwyrxian (talk) 03:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support as long as it's used with due diligence and caution. Anything that assists our productive editors in this sensitive and contentious area is a positive move. EyeSerene 12:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Caste related articles have stirred up almost unbelievable amounts of shit, and I'm honestly kind of amazed that sitush and the other productive content editors we have in the area have stuck on through it. Discretionary sanctions would be a good way to cut down - somewhat - on the amount of drama involved with this article set. Kevin (talk) 21:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support for goodness sake, yes. I too have observed issues in caste articles, which 99% of the time have editors citing 5000 year old texts and attempting to delete reliably sourced information on the basis of it. To quote another editor (I can't remember who said it), if all these caste claims were true, everyone in India would be a king or a warrior, with no one doing other stuff (like cooking, farming etc). Discretionary sanctions would hopefully bring some sanity to these articles. Steve Public (talk) 05:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I think you're referencing my comment about everyone being "kings" and nobody claiming to have been farmers. It's a riff on an American joke: "the reason we lost in Vietnam is because we didn't have any cooks or truck drivers because everyone's uncle was too busy being a sniper or a helicopter door gunner." MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support. I'd close this myself but I've gotten drawn into trying (and mostly becoming daunted) at wading in among clashing editors with the hope of NPOVing many caste-linked topics over the years. These can be the most "tendentious," sloppily-sourced and WP:OWNed/WP:SOAPBOXed articles on en.WP. Be aware, however, there are also deep language woes in this topic area: Broadly put, sub-continental English, written in the context of sub-continental cultures, is not the same as American or Commonwealth English, let alone trying to deal with translations from sundry old texts in dozens of dialects, the translations themselves sometimes being heavily spun (or "edited") one way or another. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

This appears to have fairly extensive support, and I don't see any indication that it's going to trend any way other than support for the ban...but could an uninvolved admin decide if it's time to implement this, and, if so, make the necessary entry on the sanctions page? I don't think we need to go through and pre-emptively tag all of the target articles (there must be hundreds or more), but we may want to tag the ones with the worst history and leave info at the India-related topics noticeboard. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Lack of notice to community

Holding this AN discussion away from community notice is a travesty of open-ness. In no way can this be called a community consensus. It's a given in Misplaced Pages discussions that the parties involved are informed. Caste based articles impact South Asian countries especially India. It is entirely logical and common sense that WikiProject India be informed about the discussion, besides other WikiProjects.

It is hard to assume good faith when some participants of the discussion on WT:INB also discussed discretionary sanctions here without intimation to the WikiProject noticeboard. How are we to assume good faith on behalf of all those people especially as they all subscribe to one viewpoint only?

I am in full agreement with the need for discretionary sanctions and I am not looking for a change to the policy but but I completely do not condone forum-shopping and lack of transparency. Under such circumstances, it is incorrect that this consensus be considered a community consensus. The discussion needs to be revisited with advice to all stakeholders concerned. AshLin (talk) 06:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your views AshLin, the India noticeboard should have been notified. Lynch7 07:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

WikiProjects have no jurisdiction over articles in their scope, and they are not representations entitled to speak on behalf of the community of editors in an area. While I fully agree it would have been a good idea to notify them, I can't agree that the lack of such a notification invalidates the process. You could just as well demand that every talkpage of every single article within the scope of the proposal should have got a notification, or every user talk page of every user who ever edited one of them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

That is a completely specious argument, Future Perfect. The issue is not who has control. WikiProjects do not say that they have control over articles any more than any other part of the community. However, in this case, the WikiProject community are the stakeholders in this discussion. They have a right to be informed and participate in the discussion as much as every other editor. The very edit box of this page declares in brilliant yellow that "you must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion". No attempt of any kind has been done.

Oh yes, (disclosure) I am an unpaid Special Interest Group volunteer in Wikimedia India chapter for working on WikiProject India and I am as entitled as any other Wikipedian to speak out against things perceived to be wrong.

The issue is not trivial. Over a thousand articles are affected which are edited by hundreds of users. If this Noticeboard has some governing principles which have not only been violated but that violation also defended by you, how do you expect us to have faith and abide by the decisions which have come about here? If not following your own principles does not invalidate your decision, then what do you think is the outcome? Imho, this is tainted.

I fully agree with you that every user need not be informed but it is equally clear no attempt was made to intimate the few easily identifiable stakeholders. One can understand a lapse on the part of admins who are not on INB that this never occurred to them and they were unaware of the debate raging there, but what of those users who were arguing on both pages, aware of the move to place discretionary sanctions to which the WikiProject was oblivious?

I am not quite aware as to how this is to be resolved but I felt "that something is rotten in the state of Denmark" and I am protesting very explicitly for the reason that that undermining fair play and established procedure is not the way things should be done on AN especially at a time when the AN is introspecting on how to resolve disputes better. AshLin (talk) 08:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

It probably would have been best best to notify WT:INB. I just assumed that with so many admins being involved, the appropriate procedure was being followed (I am not an admin, and the whole process of sanctions is new to me). We could start the process again but, IMO, it was always going to produce this result - we'd likely just create a "more heat than light" situation. - Sitush (talk) 09:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

We cannot undo the past. I am assuming good faith here that no one intended this to happen and in my individual capacity I accept the discussion and its conclusions. If I had participated I would have been a party to the proposal. My only request to all admins/people who participate in Misplaced Pages is that the norms and principles of Misplaced Pages are vital principles which need to be followed at all times, definitely in spirit if not to the letter. Incidents like these give cause for trolls and POV warriors to contest the sanctions on grounds of legality. In my humble opinion, so serious an issue as discretionary sanctions need to be done with greater deliberation and care than as if it were just another dispute at AN - probably the systemic cause for this lapse. From my side this issue is closed as people accept the point I have made. AshLin (talk) 12:22, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:TFD deletions by admin User:Fastily

Probably many of you admins have heard of me since I have been around for quite a while and have done a lot of stuff. Although my main responsibilities are a bit out of the way (WP:CHICAGO, WP:FOUR and WP:WAWARDS) and, generally, I don't like to spend a lot of time in lengthy discussions, I am pretty experienced at them. My two most recent WP:TFD nominations have ended with closures that were surprising to me based on my experience. In January, Misplaced Pages:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_January_10#Template:OlivierAward_DanceAchievement was closed one opinion to delete (plus the nominator) and three opinions to keep as a consensus to delete. I spent several days seeking an explanation at User_talk:Fastily/Archive_5#Misplaced Pages:Templates_for_discussion.2FLog.2F2012_January_10.23Template:OlivierAward_... and the long and the short of it was that after a few days of ignoring my queries, he claimed to be happy to explain his decision and felt the proper way to explain such a decision was to delegate the responsibility of explaining it to the nominator. Eventually, the nominator and I agreed that these should be restored with minor modifications based on discussions now located in three places:

• User_talk:Fastily/Archive_5#Misplaced Pages:Templates_for_discussion.2FLog.2F2012_January_10.23Template:OlivierAward_...
• User_talk:Frietjes#Misplaced Pages:Templates_for_discussion.2FLog.2F2012_January_10.23Template:OlivierAward_...
• User_talk:TonyTheTiger/Archive_66#Templates

Today, I found another odd closure decision at Misplaced Pages:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_January_24#Template:New_York_cities_and_mayors_of_100.2C000_population when a discussion with four deletes and three keeps was closed as consensus to delete. In my experience at various WP:XFD, even if you count the nominator if 3-5 out of 8 people are on one side of and issue and 3-5 out of 8 are on the other, generally, this is regarded as a no consensus. This particular decision may effect a total of 35 similar templates (most of which are listed at Category:United States mayors templates by state) in the near future. My alternatives are to pursue a WP:DRV. However, since the first step in a DRV is to talk to the discussion-closing editor, I would be back on Fastily (talk · contribs)'s page. He has already expressed a belief that the proper way to explain your decision is to ask the nominator to do so, I feel pursuing that would be fruitless.

I am curious about the closure because there is a possibility that no consensus is no longer considered a discussion resolution. I see my options as follows:

1. Accept the decision
2. Pursue a WP:DRV
3. Find a place to discuss
   1. whether no consensus is still used in TFD resolutions
   2. whether Fastily's understanding that the nominator is responsible for explaining a TFD closure for DRV purposes
   3. whether Fastily may be too aggressive in closing TFD discussions I have been involved in.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Remember that the number of !votes on either side is irrelevant - the quality of the arguments matter. Number 57 14:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed; the arguments for keeping the NY mayors template amounted to "It's useful" (without actually specifying how) and "You didn't nominate all these other templates at the same time". Fastily was perfectly justified in analyzing the quality of the arguments rather than just counting numbers. (FULL DISCLOSURE: I nominated the NY mayors template for deletion.) Powers 15:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The whole point of templates is that they're useful. WP:USEFUL isn't a valid reason for keeping an article, but it's the only valid reason for having templates such as {{Pp-meta}}. Nyttend (talk) 02:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

You might want to read WP:USEFUL again, Nyttend. It says that being useful can be a valid reason for keeping (whether article or not), but it has to be explained rather than simply asserted. Powers 03:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Umm, navboxes are pretty much always useful for navigating from article to article within related topics, which these are. It's definitely on those advocating deletion to explain why a specific example of such a common type of template is an aberration from the common pattern. Nyttend (talk) 18:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't make a simple declaration of "it's useful" in any way a valid argument for keeping. Powers 19:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

If you disagree with what the closer says take it to DRV. I think you are reading way too much into Fastily asking the nominator to comment. To me it looks like he was fed up of you badgering him, so asked someone else who might be able to explain without getting annoyed at you. I could be wrong of course. Also, you don't have to look very hard to find no-consensus closes by fastily (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_January_22#Template:Closed_down). Polequant (talk) 15:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

It is hard to disagree with what a closer says if he won't say anything and hard to take it to DRV when the first step is to talk with the closer when the closer won't say anything.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Well DRV will in fact hear it in cases like this; and it frequently does get the occasion to hear it, because Fastily does not explain his closes at the time he makes them, and often not on his talk p. either. Considering that a reasonable number of his closes have been overturned there, I don't think his continuing this way is constructive behavior for an admin. For everyone who take s the matter to DRv, there are probably ten who are not willing to undergo the further bureaucracy. Since many of these are people who would be making their first contribution here, closing discussions in this way, let alone avoiding discussing them, is has the effect of discouraging new contributors, at a time when we should be doing everything possible to encourage them (Most of his closes are good, of course, but an editor, especially a new editor, deserves an explanation--a good explanation of why something must be deleted will often keep the editor. Some of this should be dealt with by a rule requiring meaningful rational for non-unanimous XfD closings, but changing deletion process in practice seems to require unanimous consent. In the meantime, we can strongly urge Fastily to change his work habits in this respect. Yes, he wouldn't be able to do as many closes, but there are a few hundred other good administrators. DGG ( talk ) 19:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I proposed just that a couple of years ago. It was shot down in flames by other admins circling the wagons to defend their own laziness and highhandedness: Misplaced Pages talk:Deletion process/Archive 5#Closing rationales - optional or not?. Fences&Windows 00:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Dare I suggest that Misplaced Pages:Requests for Comment/Fastily may be in order? If this is a long term, widespread problem then that would seem the next logical step. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• AFAIK, this is appears to be a personal vendetta of Tony's. Awhile back, he contested one of my TfD closes on my talk page. I informed him that I would userfy the templates and that I was busy in RL and would provide my reasoning shortly, but he immediately dismissed it as fallacious. Annoyed by the lack of collegiality and respect I was being shown, I asked a participant in the TfD to comment in the meantime. Somehow, Tony perceived this as an attack, and literally accused me of canvassing and conspiracy. At any rate, User:Frietjes was able to work out a compromise, and the templates were moved back to the mainspace. I had believed the matter to be resolved, and so did not feel it necessary to provide rationale, granted that the concern was moot. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. I will always provide rationale for my closures when they involve contentious and/or complicated matters. I do not provide rationales when the result of the discussion is, IMO, unambiguous; nonetheless, I have never had any issues with explaining my closes/correcting errors (with and without publicly stated reasons) when requested. If that approach is so wrong, my god, we'd better start RfCs on some 20 other-odd admins who follow similar procedures. -FASTILY 07:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  • You are in some twisted universe where when I note your consistent efforts to close discussions regarding templates I have created as delete, when normal closing procedure would be to either keep or no consensus close them as my personal vendetta. All I am doing is noting your apparent vendetta to close my TFDs as delete even when to do so is non-sensical. You sound like someone explaining to the police officer that the victim's face was in front of my fist as I innocently moved my arm forward repeatedly at high velocity. Then, he went on a vendetta of screaming about how I was abusing him.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Lol, if you're determined to resort to personal attacks, my job is done here. Cheers, FASTILY 07:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Is that a personal attack? I was making an analogy. You have no reason to be running around deleting my templates in contravention of procedures and then claiming I am on a vendetta for pointing out your actions.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• I hate to say it, because I hold Fastily in high esteem, but his talk page has been on my watchlist for a couple of years, and Beeblebrox is right. This is a regular issue—whether it's files, articles, or templates, somebody seems to dispute Fastily's deletion of something every few days.

  Fastily, don't get yourself dragged into a nasty RfC—you need to slow down a little and properly explain your rationale when closing a deletion debate and when people come to your talk page disagreeing with your close. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Not only deletions, keeps as well of course. I haven't asked for an explanation of his close of Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 January 30#Template:Persondata, but a TfD with that many comments, and with rather divided and lengthy opinions, could do with an argued close (e.g. indicating why it isn't closed as a no consensus instead of a keep, and what the opinion, if any, was about the other elements in the nomination) instead of a simple "keep". I'm planning to start an RfC on this template anyway, so it won't make a huge difference probably, but I felt that the close of that TfD was rather disappointing, not because of the actual result, but the manner it was presented. Fram (talk) 08:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) @HJ Mitchell, I agree with this sentiment. Just yesterday I had an unclear deletion of an image and Fastily gave an unsatisfactory explanation of the deletion reason and the process followed. I asked for further clarification and I'm still waiting. We can't require everybody to devote time to Misplaced Pages, but administrators should be held to a higher standard since their actions can't be reversed by us entry-level editors. Great power, great responsibility; if Fastily is not willing to explain his actions in detail then s/he should refrain from closing controversial discussions. Diego (talk) 09:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I cannot comment on any long-term trends, but in this specific case, I think it's clear Tony was being unreasonable in demanding immediate explanations, to the point of checking Fastily's contributions log to see when Fastily had been editing most recently. Can we agree, at least, that if better explanations are required, that they at least be requested in a calm and civil manner? Powers 01:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Did I say anything uncivil? I was using the contributions log to get an understanding of the likelihood that he was ducking me. He has yet to give any explanation why he considered three keep votes and one delete vote consensus to delete. I continue to await an explanation by anyone who might be able to expalain that one. We may never know since we worked out a compromise.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
      • The discussion on Fastily's talk page looked to me like you were badgering Fastily (due, apparently to your own admitted "impatience"). Furthermore, you jumped immediately to the conclusion that Fastily was "ducking" you rather than acknowledging that Fastily might be busy and is volunteering his/her time to this project. Powers 15:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• comment I'm noticing a trend here. But as it is, I've repeatedly seen Fastily's name come up over disputed deletions and other related matters, and it's beginning to give me a sense of deja vu. There comes a point where we have to stop saying "it's every body else" maybe there is a problem with the way this user is going about things and their process should be improved. I've found him a little quick on the trigger when a cursory examination of something might solve the problem. This comes across as a binary mindset that has gotten other editors in conflicts in the past, often over similar issues.--Crossmr (talk) 14:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Diffs? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 02:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
    • , , here he seems to jump into a situation he just isn't really informed on and revert a bunch of stuff that doesn't need it, while old, this is simply to show that it's an on-going and long-term issue for him, etc. I don't have time right now to paw through the AN/I archives for all the times I've seen his name come up over questionable behaviour, or deletions just my opinion based on the interactions I've had with him and the discussions I've seen come up.--Crossmr (talk) 05:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

In my defense, all of these are extremely old, resolved, and irrelevant to the matter at hand. If anything, I hereby agree to self-abstain from closing long, contentious discussions without providing a statement of some sort. At any rate, I no longer plan on closing such discussions anyways, so I guess that makes the concerns we're having here moot :P Cheers, FASTILY 10:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Not fair, we won't get our dose of wikidrama now. Diego (talk) 11:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

December 2011 is "extremely" old? You have a rather interesting definition of "extremely". The concerns were not just about closing discussions. This is talking about deletions, so I can't see how this makes anything moot.--Crossmr (talk) 00:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• There may be an issue here that goes beyond closing deletion discussions. I have no particular memory of previously interacting with Fastily, but for what it's worth, I am semi-regularly editing DRV and I remember closing (or commenting in) an uncommonly high number of review requests that concerned an clearly mistaken speedy deletion by Fastily.  Sandstein  07:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment Is it appropriate to ask that Fastily explain his reasoning for the two closes that caused me to initiate this discussion.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Fastily thankfully deletes a whole lot of things - templates, images, etc. So much so that he has a simple page that describes his reasonings. Typically, if you approach them, they point you there and if you want more info, simply ask for a follow-up ... usually, unless the question is already answered the first time, Fastily is more-than-willing to give some extra explanation. By sheer ratio, I would actually bet that the number of just fine deletions to questionable is better than most of us. Just like the average American has heard of more problems with Plymouth Sunfire automobiles than Jaguar XJC's, it's a matter of quantity for the most part (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, in coping with the large number of inquiries about deletion, the boilerplate responses may come off badly with good faith editors who recognise the general concern, but don't understand the specifics as to what was wrong with their article. I understand that this is a wider issue, especially with over-use of warning templates, and I don't necessarily think that Fastly should be specifically highlighted here, but it does seem to cause issues. Otherwise there is no question that Fastly does lots of great work, and the one time I raised a problem it was fixed quickly and without any hassles at all. - Bilby (talk) 13:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

RFC/U closer needed

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Fæ has been running since 26 January (for the record I am not involved in it in any way). There is no consensus on any proposal and no prospect of a consensus forming. It's got seriously out of hand, with the posting today of a discussion about the alleged sex life of the target of the RfC/U - possibly the most inappropriate and intrusive discussion I've ever seen on Misplaced Pages, which is saying something. It has clearly degenerated into an unproductive and pointless slanging match between different editors. A majority of editors on the talk page has supported a motion by H.J. Mitchell to close the RfC/U (see Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/Fæ#Motion to close). It badly needs to be closed, so could someone please do the job? Prioryman (talk) 20:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• - I don't see this as being correct. I am sure any admin will weigh up the discussions but - There are 12 supports for closing on the talk thread and eleven opposes - clearly as I can see A majority of editors on the talk page has supported a motion by H.J. Mitchell to close the RfC/U - a majority of one? Also - the numbers of editors opining on that talkpage thread are a small percentage of the users that have opined in the rfc user - imo - it needs a proper resolving close and not a no consensus for anything type close. Youreallycan 20:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, since the issue of closing was brought up here, and because the community is highly divided on the underlying issues, I'd like to request that a panel of three experienced, uninvolved Wikipedians be appointed to close that dramafest. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 20:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

(ec)Having a hard time seeing the good faith in the close request. The motion to close, with a recent position switch, is at 12 support, 10 close. A numerical advantage, yes, but for all intents and purposes of gauging consensus, an even split. It is also more aimed at the sniping at the talk page; the rfC itself is relatively straight-forward so far. If someone wishes to put a halt to the talk page antics, then that is a separate issue that should not short-circuit the rfC. Second, while "not involved" may technically apply to the RfC, Prioryman has been very involved in the Fae/Ash topic overall, i.e. Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive737#Delicious Carbuncle harassment and outing: block or ban proposal. Tarc (talk) 20:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Your last point is misleading. I have been involved in the narrow issue of the campaign of harassment and outing that Delicious Carbuncle has mounted on Misplaced Pages Review but have had no other involvement in "the Fae/Ash topic", nor have I passed any judgements on that topic. Prioryman (talk) 20:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Your post just above is a perfect illustration while a single person claiming uninvolvement cannot be trusted to close this RfC/U fairly. WP:GAME. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 21:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• re: the ASCIIn2Bme post (of 20:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)). Not all that long ago, there was an RfC closed in exactly that manner. (the topic escapes my memory at the moment). My point being, it would not be entirely unprecedented. No opinion on the Fae matter, at least not one I'd share other than the fact that I very much agreed with Balloonman's assessment of the situation in many cases. — Ched :  ?  21:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• It wouldn't be unprecedented but why would three closers be needed in this instance? ASCIIn2Bme acknowledges that "the community is highly divided" so there clearly is no consensus in the RfC. That would be still true with one closer - it doesn't need three to recognise that fact. Prioryman (talk) 21:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• (ec)My assessment being that the RfC is winding down and unlikely to invoke any sanctions against Fae and that the discussion is rapidly degenerating. I personally do not see the need to keep this open as it has simply become a place to cast dispersions and tie Fae's name to a heap of deep seated bitterness---which at this point is no longer about Fae, but rather about specific individuals involved in the RfC. It is turning into a discord about why specific users were or were not justified in saying/doing certain things here and elsewhere. (now that summary is a little more than what Ched endorsed, but the point is that the RfC has lost its focus and is now turning south.)---Balloonman 21:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• As I understand it - RFC users are not about sanctions at all - they are more about, urging of the community that the user do this or that a bit better and are better resolved if the users makes some kind of comment that they understand the communities issues and will do this or that a bit differently, and from the other side a closing comment from the community that they appreciated this and that good aspects and so on - good faith agreements and urgings rather than sanctions is the RFC user dish of the day. Youreallycan 21:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

And the only issues that have garnered a significant amount of support are 1) Themfromspaces/ReverendWayne which simply says that Fae's RfA would not have passed if his prior account had been known (but neither makes a call to relinquish the bit) and 2) Hobit's view which explicitly says not to relinquish the bit. 3) We also have Russivia and HJs views questioning the motives/substane of the RfC. Beyond that, not much support for anything.---Balloonman 21:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• - Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Fæ#Outside_view_by_Themfromspace - forty three editors support this view - those opines sure seem worthy of some kind of decent resolving closure to me. Any closure should focus on the RFCuserpage and not the talkpage. Youreallycan 21:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  • 43 users support the view that if the facts were known when the RfA occured that he wouldn't have passed. 4 of those users explicitly state the view is not contradictory with Hobits view (supported by 31 users) or that they are not calling for the bit. So the closer can simply say, "There was a strong sense that had his identity been known during his RfA he would not have passed, but there is no consensus that he should be forced step down or undergo another rfa." Themfromspaces view is a statement of fact, not a call to action.---Balloonman 21:41, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Although you are too involved to assert closure, you make some good points worthy of inclusion in the close. I do not think user fae would stand down or take another RFA if one hundred or two hundred users opposed the issues surrounding his first RFA - that is not included in his recall standard. Please lets not derail this now - the RFC is open a couple of weeks and there are attempts to discuss and get consensus for a positional close. -Users that have contributed and opined in good faith need a decent close, attempting to force closure at this stage will create a poor resolution. - wait, relax, the fat lady has still to sing, as they say. Youreallycan 21:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Thanks ;-)
      • That being said, I had explicitly not commented in the call for closure because I agreed with you. Unfortunately, the tone in the RfC has taken a decidedly downward turn over the past 24 hours. It's turning into more bickering and bellyaching than anything material. Unless that changes, the RfC will lose all semblance of credibility and as the RfC spirals out of control, Fae's name is now being attached to the whining. I'm also not saying Fae gets a free ride or is without guilt. I just don't see anything happening when the 3 major areas of agreement are: 1) Fae would not have passed if his past was known 2) that being said he shouldn't be forced to stepdown/undergo a recall and 3) questions exist about the motives of the rfc. And I don't think anything will change in the next two weeks.---Balloonman 22:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
        • Yes - your probably correct - Youreallycan 22:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
          • Wow, were starting to agree to something, see the RfC has had at least one potential synthesis ;-)
          • My final argument for early closure, again stemming from the downward turn in the RfC over the past 24 hours, as the bickering continues, the issues are moving more and more away from Fae and more and more onto 2 or 3 specific users involved in the RfC (representing both supporters and detractors). This makes it harder to identify the real issues surrounding Fae. It also becomes a barrier for any meaningful new input into the discussion. If a person isn't already involved, I doubt they are going to dredge through the crap that is accumulating on the talk page and proposals page. This might make it easier for special interest groups to game the system. In other words, I don't think keeping it open for 2 more weeks will result in new productive input from people not already involved.---Balloonman 22:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
            • While some obviously inflammatory material has been posted (and WP:REVDELeted), I think, as a rule, we should not allow such a tactic to derail RfCs. Some substantive and civilly expressed views on the community's expectations with respect to ArbCom involvement in such cases has been posted not so long ago by User:Tryptofish. I'd like to see more editors weigh in on that rather than the WP:BADSITES drama that seems to capture the lion's share of attention. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 22:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Thinking that it was a discussion at WP:V regarding V vs. Truth, I think this] is what I was thinking of. — Ched :  ?  21:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the rationale here. The RFC/U has not been running for the standard 30 days, yet Prioryman is arguing it should be closed because it there seems to be no consensus yet? Surely that is an argument for leaving the RFC/U open, not one for closing it...? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The RfC has taken a nasty turn away from Fae and towards others. You've made a "view" relative to your motives and a sense of being attacked by Wnt/Rich. Wnt/Rich have made allegations against you and WR. You've made allegations against them. Cla's made allegations against them. Misplaced Pages Review is now under discussion. Cla has his list of non-personal "personal attacks". If the discourse was on Fae and his behavior, I would have no problem leaving it open... but over the past 36 hours, the dialog has moved away from Fae and onto you and several other editors... and has turned nastier. Constructive dialog seems to have disappeared under the weight of inuendo and allegations. It's turned into a drhama fest and I can't see anything changing between now and the next 2 weeks. If I thought something beneficial might come out of it or if I thought the bickering and bellyaching would disappear, then I might support keeping it open. As is, I don't see much value in the RfC.---Balloonman 15:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Things have gotten out of hand on the talk page, but that could have (and still can be) handled by judicious application of guidelines like WP:NPA. Additionally, people who have already expressed their opinions, such as yourself, would be well advised not to belabour discussions by repeating those same opinions. I think many of the people involved in discussions have intractable views and no amount of discussion will be productive. It would be far more useful to hear from editors who are undecided or who have legitimate questions about what has been presented in the RFC/U. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm persuaded by the above that the RfC should stay open. My rush to close was prompted by the appalling talk page. There is so much off-topic comment there, about the motives of editors and their off-wiki behaviour, that incidentally "necessitates" detailed discussion about an editor's sex life, that I just wanted to shut it up. But the right step would be for a genuinely uninvolved editor to strip all such inappropriate filling out of the talk page. Revdel or suppression of some comments would be in order. What is and isn't appropriate for a discussion about Fae's editing of BLPs and arbitrators' treatment of clean start and arbitrators' behaviour at RfAs is pretty bloody obvious. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Please don't close it prematurely. The good news is that there continue to be productive views that are being offered. The bad news is that the talk page has become a morass of claims and counterclaims about WR that may well end up with some users finding themselves at ArbCom, but that's not a reason to close the RfC/U. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Motion to close was properly posted (and failed) on the RFC/U talk page -- requesting a close here seems like WP:FORUMSHOPPING Nobody Ent 00:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Ent, I wouldn't call it forumshopping---I think Priory was hoping to get somebody to go to the section and close it based upon the section which was still open and the degregation of the discussion on the talk page. It would be forum shopping if this had been opened after that was closed down. But coming here to get an admin to review the section and close, is standard protocol. But I agree, if that section is closed, then this one should similarly be closed as this was a call to action based upon that one.---Balloonman 23:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

A simple "Would an uninvolved admin please review Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/Fæ#Motion to close." would have accomplished that goal -- the fact the editor is continuing to argue to point here is why I characterized it as shopping. Nobody Ent 23:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to agree with Ent here. The motion to close was effectively a no consensus; that much is clear. I also agree, to a point, with the following statement, though gramatically misworded: "There is no consensus on any proposal and no prospect of a consensus forming. It's got seriously out of hand." People are so sensitive in that talk page, as well, that my attempt to archive some of the older discussions to a second page was quickly reversed because someone thought that those discussions might actually be used in the closure of the project page itself. Rolling eyes CycloneGU (talk) 03:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Audit Subcommittee appointments (2012): Invitation to comment on candidates

The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint at least three non-arbitrator members to the Audit Subcommittee, and is now seeking comments from the community regarding the candidates who have volunteered for this role.

Interested parties are invited to review the appointments page containing the nomination statements supplied by the candidates and their answers to a few standard questions. Community members may also pose additional questions and submit comments about the candidates on the individual nomination subpages or privately via email to arbcom-en-blists.wikimedia.org.

Following the consultation phase, the committee will take into account the answers provided by the candidates to the questions and the comments offered by the community (both publicly and privately) along with any other relevant factors before making a final decision regarding appointments.

The consultation phase is scheduled to end 23:59, 19 February 2012 (UTC), and the appointments are scheduled to be announced by 29 February 2012.

For the Arbitration Committee, –xeno 04:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Discuss this

Block Review

I'm asking for a block review. Yesterday, Balloonman asked for some attention at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Fæ. He requested a neutral admin review a long list of "personal attacks" that User:Cla68 had posted. To be clear, these were "personal attacks" by others and Cla68 had collected the diffs from about a dozen people. I hatted the discussion because the "attacks" were not attacks at all or so weak that a reasonable person would not constitute them as attacks. Cla68 didn't unhat the discussion, but felt it necessary to summarize what was in the hat and repeated his attacks. I hated the summary and suggested to Cla68 that the proper thing to do when you disagree with an admin action is not to go around it but to discuss it with the admin or seek consensus to overturn at WP:AN.

Cla68 alledged that although I am "previously uninvolved, that I have now taken a side and so my action was dishonest. I pointed him to WP:INVOLVED. I then suggested several times that if he has a problem with it then he come here and seek wider review of my actions. Cla68 summarized again, I undid. I left a final warning not to return the attacks. This morning he sumarized again, and I wrapped the hat around it. I then blocked him for 24 hours for disruption. Please review.--v/r - TP 14:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Overturn. Given that you edit-warred with Cla68 over his leaving a summary of the discussion you hatted , I would say it wasn't your call to block Cla68. --JN466 14:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • So you suggest that next time I should block at the first incident rather than WP:AGF that the editor will heed warnings from an uninvolved admin?--v/r - TP 14:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Don't ask for a review of your actions if you're going to be snarky with people who respond. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
      • No. (edit conflict)What I mean is that you're not the only admin able to assess and deal with the situation. Once you'd engaged in an edit war – you reverted Cla68's summary three times, I think – you had become involved IMO, and would have been better off at that point taking a step back and letting another admin look at it. Just my two cents; perhaps others will see it differently. --JN466 14:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
        • (edit conflict) I'm sorry, I wasn't trying to be snarky. I was considering just waiting to let someone else respond but suggested an uninvolved admin cannot block because they took admin actions to enforce a policy and gave the user ample opportunity to stop their behavior before a block just seems completely unreasonable. But maybe I've completely mistook WP:INVOLVED.--v/r - TP 14:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The user was collecting those diffs in good faith from what I can see - it is a personal attack to allege someone is a homophobe and there was plenty of that going on - there is no way that user Delicious Carbunkle is homophobic or he should be called a homophobe by people here. User:Cla68 should be proud for being blocked for pointing that out and presenting the diffs of it happening and for asking the users that did it to retract. Youreallycan 14:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Please tell me how the following are personal attacks:

• Not 100% sure about the anti-gay motivatation, but whatever the reason, this harrassment against a quality Wikipedian is dispicable.
• The "only way out" is to support Fae here. If you "compromise" and leave him under a cloud, you're not ending anything. The exact same Inquisition will be in session tomorrow, with someone else in its sights. Besides, what kind of jury works on the basis that you compromise and say "guilty" on some counts just to get along?
• I hate that I'm signing on to this view, but I think I must. The focus on Fæ and his past incarnations does in fact feel a little homophobic
• The stated context for this RfC is disingenuous, the primary motivation is harassment.
• This is nothing more than cyber poofter bashing
• I have not verified everything in this statement, but I verified enough to confirm that Fæ is being harassed for supporting LGBT issues.

These are just some of the shorter edits being cited. The point is that according to Cla, if you disagree with Cla/DC, if you think the dispute feels a "little homophobic", if you question the motives of the rfc---then it is a personal attack. According to Cla's reasoning, we have to fully accept the motives of the people who brought forth the RfC and to do otherwise is a violation of civil. In 5 years of editing WP, I've never seen the bar for civility set so low as to what Cla is claiming it should be here. Per Cla's reasoning, my opening the ANI report yesterday is a breach of civility.---Balloonman 15:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Overturn. Really, really bad block (disclaimer: I'm involved in the RfC, though I have not expressed any opinions regarding the thread or the personal attacks against Cla or others). Salvio 14:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support I am not a big fan of civility blocks, but when the civility issue in question appears to have the effect of squelching discussion or intimidation, then that changes matters. Cla started a list of people who have made "personal attacks during the RfC" and used examples consisting of the flimsiest examples I've seen labelled as personal attacks and violations of civility in a long time. The list was strictly those people who disagreed with Cla or DC. Most of them were not attacks at all, but rather comments and opinions. I don't want to accuse Cla of intentionally attempting to squelch dialog, but by compiling a list of trivial complaints it had that perception. So I brought it to ANI. Two admins reviewed it and both agreed, it was inappropriate---TP and Atama. TParis appropriately hatted the section. Cla unhatted. TParis, as an uninvolved admin, gave Cla a final warning. Tryptofish warned him that Cla should "drop this. It's only going to blow up, and do no good". To which Cla responded, "There is a method to my madness." User_talk:Cla68#Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/Fæ. Cla's collection of edits are not personal attacks. For example, this is one of the so-called violaitons Cla cites, "Not 100% sure about the anti-gay motivatation, but whatever the reason, this harrassment against a quality Wikipedian is dispicable." If that is a personal attack violation of civil then we are doomed. By claiming that that edit and similar edits by other users is a personal attack, Cla's edits have the effect of squelching discourse. (I will note that as of the last time I checked I have not been included in his list of people who have made personal attacks.)---Balloonman 15:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Just so I understand: if I want to, I could come to this thread right here, say "as an uninvolved admin, I declare this thread is a personal attack" and close it, and if someone disagrees with me I can then edit war with them, warn them, and block them myself because I was previously uninvolved? See, that's why the idea of having admins more vigorously patrol ANI is a well-intentioned but bad idea. There are too many admins who think they have good judgement, when they don't really. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Absolutely - well said - this block was not a resolving solution, it was and still is a punitive part of the problem. Youreallycan 15:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) I think the point of being uninvolved is that I don't know Fae or DC or Cla68 at all and the turnout of the RFC has no impact on me. I'm as unbiased as it comes. I reviewed the diffs, could not see how many of them were personal attacks at all and others were so weak that the term attack couldn't convey their actual meaning, and hated the discussion. Cla68, directly involved, felt differently. Do the involved see things more clearly than the uninvolved? If you, reasonably, feel this thread is a personal attack, then I strongly encourage you to do what you must to enforce WP:NPA. (After conflict) Youreallycan: If stopping the unhatting of those attacks is not preventative, then I missed the redefinition of the word.--v/r - TP 15:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • If an uninvolved admin takes action as an admin that you disagree with, you don't edit war with them. You bring it to AN/ANI for review. You appeal the situation--especially when people on WP:AN, your talk page, and the admin's talk page all agree with the admins actions.---Balloonman 17:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• support <non-admin> editing warring with someone when they are taking an admin action is certainly blockable. I personally don't think hatting was needed, but that's a different issue. If Cla68 felt the hatting was inappropriate, they could have come to AN for a discussion. 24 hours feels about right to me. Hobit (talk) 15:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oh, I'm involved in the RfC too. Hobit (talk) 16:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• support If an editor is given a "last warning" by an admin and they respond by immediately repeating the exact action that they've been warned about then they should be blocked. Exok (talk) 17:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• I hated the summary and suggested to Cla68 that the proper thing to do when you disagree with an admin action is not to go around it but to discuss it with the admin or seek consensus to overturn at WP:AN.

  "hatting" a discussion is not an admin action. Admin actions are blocks, bans, deletions and undeletions. Any neutral person could have been asked to give an opinion of the links. Admins are no more special than other users, except for a (rebuttable) presumption that they are level-headed and sensible. You got into a pissing contest with Cla68 because he disagreed with your "admin action". Cla68 was also being a bit of a dick, as far as I can tell on short examination. The real question is, what was Cla trying to prove by posting that collection of links. He doesn't state a motive but he must have had one. Is it that there is a double standard regarding personal attacks and enforcement? Or something else? That's what you need to focus on, not a pissing contest over a collection of third party statements.Thatcher 19:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • As I said to JN466, hatting is in the toolbox. I could've taken a more direct admin action such as blocking right away but I opted to WP:AGF.--v/r - TP 19:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
    • What "toolbox"? Hatting is a function available to every editor. Are you referring to some automated script? If so, realize any editor can "hat" an article manually. The biggest source of unforced errors by admins is admins who think they have more power than they do, deciding to prove it on some "upstart" who doesn't respect authority. If you even have 2 seconds of consideration that blocking Cla68 outright before discussing the issue might have been reasonable, then you have no business being an admin, at least not on the Misplaced Pages that I originally joined. The first thing to do is to find out why he posted the links, what he was really up to, and seeing if there wasn't some better place to have that discussion. Thatcher 19:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Are you aware of the discussion at WP:AN/I#unnecessary section in an RFC? Prioryman (talk) 20:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
        • The admin also opened threads on Cla68's user talk page, and it continued to the admin's talk page. The block didn't occur out-of-the-blue without prior discussion.   Will Beback  talk  21:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
          • For the record the extensive discussion before the block, in which Cla68 was involved, is at User talk:TParis#Hatting.
• Overturn. Inappropriate block. Everyking (talk) 21:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Wholly appropriate. Balloonman's comments are spot on; this is not the first time that Cla68 has compiled lists of this sort. Prioryman (talk) 22:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Overturn - I'm starting to become really concerned that in this case as well as couple of other recent controversies, a person who is the subject of personal attacks or slurs or who brings these to the attention of the community is quickly silenced through one means or another under the excuse that pointing out the errors in the behavior of others is a "personal attack" itself. And of course, all of this takes place in an environment where advocacy, grudges, and "involvedness" are rampant, which is why none of these have much support. And yes, hatting other people's comments is neither an admin-exclusive privilege-that-must-not-be-messed-with, nor is it a particularly collegial thing to do (in most cases, one's own talk page aside, it's simply obnoxious and overbearing).VolunteerMarek 22:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• I'm way, way too involved to express an opinion here, but as I said at the RfC, it is not a "personal attack" to say that somebody has been subjected to homophobia or harassment. It would be a personal attack to make an unfounded allegation of such homophobia or harassment against a particular editor or group of editors, but very little of that is evidenced in Cla68's diffs. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Oy come on, while nobody was stupid enough (most of these folks have been around long enough, under one username or another, to know how to make personal attacks without "making personal attacks") to come right out and say "so-and-so is a homophobe", the insinuation that DC and others are homophobic is pervasive in some of the comments. Particularly Prioryman's. I do think Cla included some folks in there that probably were not making personal attacks, but that's farther down the list.VolunteerMarek 23:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

VM---I will ask you again to explain to me how those examples I cited above are personal attacks? How are we to have reasonable discourse if people can't express what they think/feel? I mean the entirety of an edit that is deemed a personal attack is, "This is nothing more than cyber poofter bashing" Or another one where a person says that it "does in fact feel a little homophobic"---not that it is. Or the person who says that they don't buy the anti-gay agenda, but finds the "harrassment against a quality Wikipedian is dispicable." Sorry, if the examples used by Cla are personal attacks, then 90% of the posts on ANI are personal attacks. Citing differences of opinion as personal attacks is a personal attack which appears designed to quell dissent--to which I'm more concerned about than the actual civility issues of making such allegations.---Balloonman 23:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• • HJ Mitchell, for better or worse accusations without evidence are prohibited by WP:NPA#WHATIS: "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki. Sometimes evidence is kept private and made available to trusted users." The alleged evidence in this case was REVDELETED by functionary Fred Bauer. I think that perhaps something akin to OTRS tickets should be developed for these situations. E.g., someone should be able to say on-wiki "I have off-wiki evidence that Editor:XXX has engaged in homophobic attacks against YYY. Evidence is available in ArbCom ticket 123." I'm actually going to float this ticket proposal to ArbCom. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 02:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support. These edits are typical of the battleground behavior for which Cla68 has been guilty of in the past.   Will Beback  talk  23:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Unblock. With all due respect to TParis (who is a good admin), my concerns are more about the general notion that admins can hat discussions and remove posts when it suits them, and no one else can challenge those decisions. I'm not speaking of this case specifically, but all too often we see abusive admins close off discussions that shouldn't be closed off-- in ways that escalate disputes-- and the hatting or closure often should be challenged and reversed. I don't want to see the idea that admins can control the flow of information in the form of evidence take hold (I've been on the short end of that stick many times at ANI, where abusive admins can prevent the accused from speaking, even in their own defense, even when the accuser gives no diffs, even when the accused responds with a query and with diffs). If TParis closed, Cla re-opened, then TParis hatted again, he is reverting to his own preferred version, hence is involved, and should not block. And please, let's stop this notion that admins can stifle evidence that is taking over ANI. Yes, it's a circus and some controls are needed there, but the accused have the right to speak. I don't think Cla's block is right. I realize this occurred at an RFC-- not ANI-- but it's the idea that admins can control the presentation of evidence at either place that is worrying me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Sandy, did you actually look at the "personal attacks" Cla has cited? The personal attacks that Cla has cited are along the lines of "I think this RfC is harrassment." While I am not a big fan of Civility/NPA blocks, Cla's allegations of NPA appears to be nothing more than an attempt to stiffle discussion at the RfC by accusing anybody who has called out Cla/DC as making a personal attack. Cla's level of civility would have every editor involved in the civility case cited for NPA/Civil attacks.---Balloonman 06:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Some of it is indeed like you say, but other stuff is far more direct, e.g. 2nd diff in Cla's list:

    • == Harrassment by Delicious Carbuncle == This request is simply an extension of harrassment by some other vile characters on Wikipediareview. Fae has undergone some unadulterated harrasment by various users on WR, and a lot of it is of the homophobic variety. DC, IMO, is very close to going over this line of harrassment, if they haven't already.
      — User:Russavia 23:36, 26 January 2012

    • Apropos of nothing (if I may lead with a phrase favored by Arbitrators): Some people have become experts at poisoning the well with insinuations while introducing just enough conditionals in their phrasing so that it can be technically disqualified as an attack on a specific person. One such expert has recently received a one year enforced vacation from Misplaced Pages, thanks to ArbCom. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 15:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
      • IF Cla had listed Russivia and possibly even Prioryman, then this would never have reached this point. Whether you agree or disagree with their edits being personal attacks, one can see that there is animosity there that predates this rfc. (Just as one can see animosity between Cla/DC and Fae that predates this rfc.) The problem is that Cla didn't leave it at the low hanging fruit or the people with whom there is a history, instead he decided to attack everybody who questions the motives or perspectives provided by Cla/DC/the RfC. By casting such a broad net with such a low bar for inclusion, it shifts from a reasonable discussion to what appears to be an effort to squelch disagreement. "Can't say that it feels like homophobia because then Cla will include me in his NPA violation lists." By only highlighting those people who disagree with him, he is not listing people who have made personal attacks. Hell, reading the RfC, you can find a lot more vicious and straight forward attacks against Fae---but Cla doesn't include those. As for the people who are questioning the motives of the RfC... that is common practice. I suspect that 4 out 5 RfCs which generate discussion have people challenging the motives of the people who are engaged in them. Standard rhethoric seen on every level from RfC to presidential debate. (Again, I'm not that worried about Cla's personal attacks as I am about the apparent affect of trying ot stiffle dialog.)---Balloonman 23:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
        • It's worth pointing out that I've not even participated in the RfC, so listing me under "personal attacks during this RfC" is complete bullshit. I also have to point out that Fae has unquestionably been the target of homophobic attacks prompted by the discussions of him on WR - you have only to look at the top of his user talk page for evidence of that (much more has been revdel'ed). DC has also made comments on WR which could easily be interpreted (as I do) as homophobic, or at least dog-whistles for homophobes. So in short, Russavia's comments are entirely factual. Prioryman (talk) 08:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support I'm not neutral here, because apparently I've been accused of making personal attacks. At no point did Cla68 approach me to discuss this, and frankly reading over what I wrote at the RfC, I don't see any personal attacks either. I've never even interacted with Cla68, except for agreeing with several other editors above that he should stop his crusade to get Will Beback to answer three questions whose answers were obvious. AniMate 00:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: If this block was intended to show that "the admins" will indeed circle the wagons to protect "whatever it is admins are protecting", it does a darn good job of it. OTOH the wording of the unblock request completes the circle of silliness. --SB_Johnny |  00:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Overturn Noting that accumulation of evidence is a protected activity on Misplaced Pages for use in dispute resolution, that claims without sourcing about other editors is found in abundance from other editors on that RFC/U and that there is a reasonable likelihood that such evidence might be used in a future ArbCom proceding, the block is improper. Improper blocks do not gain propriety by being supported by BATTLEGROUND protagonists against the person blocked. Collect (talk) 01:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Strong meh. I wish people voluntarily stopped making a drama out of a genuine Catch 22 policy issue involving accusations that cannot be backed up by evidence without violating Misplaced Pages policies like BLP and WP:PRIVACY. I was so annoyed by the feud around that issue that I even added a view to the RfC/U about it. I don't know what else to say besides repeating my sincere request that everyone involved in that drop the WP:STICK on-wiki and pursue whatever needs pursuing in that respect through the private ArbCom channels set out in policy. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 01:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Overturn for the reasons set out by Flo, Sandy, and Collect. Totally agree with ASCII. Appreciate that the admin brought this here, it must be said. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 02:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
  • By the way, I've submitted a proposal to ArbCom for introducing a system of tickets for private evidence that they may be referred to on wiki without violating BLP/PRIVACY policies, while allowing precise references to concrete evidence instead of vague remarks which are sometimes perceived as mere insinuations. ASCIIn2Bme (talk)
• Although not a clear consensus, the majority of responders here appear to agree that the block was incorrect. Cla68 (talk) 00:55, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• Cla68 has resumed his "naming and shaming" campaign. Mathsci (talk)

• So let's summarise. He posts a list of so-called "personal attacks" which uninvolved admins say are clearly nothing of the sort. The list includes comments which have nothing to do with the RfC - as in my case, since I've not participated in it. He posts them to the RfC, even though it contributes nothing to the discussion. Predictable drama ensures - in fact, I would suggest that Cla68 is aiming to provoke drama. Uninvolved admins review and hat it. He unhats it. It's hatted again. He reposts a summary outside the hat. It's hatted yet again and he's warned. He's advised by someone else to drop it but replies "There is a method to my madness" - in other words, I think he wanted to get blocked so that he could cause more drama. He reposts it again and he's blocked. Drama ensues on AN/I and AN. As soon as he's unblocked, he reposts it again. And so the drama continues. In short, drama and disruption isn't a byproduct, it's being caused deliberately. It speaks volumes about what kind of editor he is. Prioryman (talk) 08:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Prioryman, you might should check the diffs again. I didn't unhat the discussion. Cla68 (talk) 11:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support – Ballonman implicitly requested admin intervention, so in a sense Cla was edit warring against an Admin action. More than 1 day would have been heavy handed, Tparis got it just right. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I'd suggest that that is more tenable in retrospect than it would have been at the time. Barring an existing consensus that "hatting" was (or could be) an admin action, it's not reasonable to have expected Cla to have seen it as such. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 13:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - In trying to prove that the first diff of mine he cited was unfounded, I blundered into violating WP:Linking to external harassment. There wasn't really any way I could have disputed what he said without adding fuel to the fire, but I regret distressing Fae by taking the bait. While it is true that this is just one of a variety of policy-based ad hominem impeachments flying back and forth among RfC/U participants, this one was particularly irrelevant to Fae's situation. Hatting the thread (more importantly, formally discounting its relevance) was justified. Wnt (talk) 15:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Cla68 now posting "warnings" to editors

Following the expiry of his block, Cla68 is continuing the disruption by posting "warnings" to various editors relating to his bogus claims of personal attacks (see e.g. , , ). This is a rather obvious escalation of what Balloonman has rightly described as intimidatory tactics aimed at stifling discussion. This can only cause further drama and disruption. Prioryman (talk) 11:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Cla68's actions seem comical but their underlying intent is divisive and intimidatory. She clearly has little interest in the ideas or opinions of her fellow editors and has openly flouted the guidance and sanctions of an administrator. It's time for a clear line to be drawn. Exok (talk) 11:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Cla68 is not and never has been an administrator. Prioryman (talk) 11:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure the three editors Cla68 have warned have enough sense to just ignore it.--v/r - TP 14:47, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Cla68 warned 8 editors at one time (10 if you count Russavia and Prioryman), out of 13 people who he attacked in his enemies list. These "warnings", spammed across multiple namespaces, are nothing but intimidatory tactics designed to stifle dissent at the RfC/U. I stand by my comments, and I stand against intimidation. To any user on the fence about the allegations against Fae: this is what happens when the community allows a user to be harassed by an external website. They are only emboldened and expand their targets. Shrigley (talk) 17:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Prioryman, are you trying to disrupt attempts by an editor to engage in the dispute resolution process? Cla68 (talk) 11:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Also, why didn't you notify me of this discussion on my talk page? I haven't banned you from my talk page as you have me from yours. You are free to post there whenever you like. Cla68 (talk) 11:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• Not too bothered about Cla, they're no worse than the other WR accounts. Wouldnt want them blocked as have a feeling they honestly believe they're doing whats best the encylopedia. Do wish someone would delete the RfC. Everytime a reasonable editor makes a point the accounts seem to treat it as an excuse to say even more hurtful things about the subject. As they often repeat his real name, the inevtiable result of prolonging the discussion seems to be even more real world damage to one of our most productive volunteers. Doesnt seem to be a plus side either. The common sense free walls of text from the swarming WR accounts make it useless as a consensus forming exercise, has to be the worst RfC/U ever, which is saying something. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• I think that either WP:CANVASS should be repealed in its entirety, or else it should be applied to the recruitment from WR. Wnt (talk) 14:47, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• Cla68 posted on my talk page. I responded to him there. I have nothing to add to this discussion which has not already been said. Thanks everyone for participating in this talk; I am satisfied with the things I see. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• This is utterly ridiculous, Blue's edit for which he is getting a warning is for declaring in an RfC on Fae, that ""Fæ is being harassed for supporting LGBT issues". That is it. Cla's bar for personal attacks is so utterly ridiculous (and self selective) that it litterally stiffles discussion. Cla cited another user for saying that while he didn't buy the anti-gay agenda, that the attacks "feel a little homophobic", another editor for saying Fae was being "harrassed", and other editor for calling the RfC "cyber poofery". Most of the "attacks" are not "personal attacks" but rather perspectives on what is going on---he just doesn't like the idea that people are questioning the motives. Cla was recently blocked (in a disputable block) but his actions appear to be nothing more than acts of intimidation. (Note, I haven't been cited as making personal attacks. But I am surprised that I haven't because I'm calling his actions acts of intimidation.)---Balloonman 17:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • To be completely honest, as an editor who has expressed his opinion on Fae's handling of his clean start and RfA, I find claims that the RfC is just "cyber poofter bashing" slightly annoying. That too is an attempt at stifling the discussion. Granted, it's nothing particularly serious; after reading, I logged out and forgot all about it, but other editors have been singled out in a more insidious way. I don't think that what Cla is doing is useful in any way and is only likely to generate drama, as we're seeing here, and not every diff he has collected actually contained personal attacks, but it is undeniable that people who have criticised Fae have been described as a bunch of homofobes. That should not be overlooked when reprehending Cla's reaction. Salvio 17:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Cyber Poofery---Annoying? Yes. Childish? Yes. A violation of civil/npa warranting an warning or to be highlighted as such? No. There are sooooooo many other comments made here and there that are much more deserving of being labelled violations that if we kowtow to accepting this as such, then we are in trouble as a community. And BTW, you should now be getting a warning from Cla for making a personal attack, because this is the exact type of comment that Cla targets.---Balloonman 18:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I fail to see that saying something seems "a little bit homophobic" differs significantly from saying something seems "a little bit racist" or a "little bit sexist". Conversations in to which such phrases are dropped tend to degenerate into shouting.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

It isn't, but is it a personal attack to say that something "feels a little bit racist/sexist/homophobic?" No, it is an opinion.---Balloonman 07:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Does WP:NPA no longer protect editors from serious unsubstantiated allegations?

Among the things that WP:NPA lists as personal attacks is "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence". It notes "Serious accusations require serious evidence". I have been accused of many things lately from harassment to homophobia, all without the evidence that should be required for such charges. How can I possibly respond to allegations such as "DC has also made comments on WR which could easily be interpreted (as I do) as homophobic, or at least dog-whistles for homophobes"? It is true in one sense, since an editor here was able to interpret comments I made there to mean almost the exact opposite of what I said and labelled them as "anti-gay" despite the fact that they had nothing to do with homosexuality. To make it worse, the specific comment they found to be "anti-gay" wasn't even expressing my opinion, it was putting forth what someone might say. It may be useful to remember that the narrative that my actions are motivated by homophobia was started by the user involved in the RFC/U when they edited along side User:Benjiboi as User:Ash. I recall insinuations that I was homophobic even while I was suggesting that Ash create stubs for gay porn performers (to address the issue of links on lists of gay porn performers and award winners pointing to the wrong people). Apparently advocating having more articles about gay porn performers is something a homophobe does. I hope that reasonable people will see it for what it was - a smokescreen to deflect criticism.

Prioryman's latest comment are much more nuanced than the misleading and inflammatory comments they made when they were attempting to have me banned (one example of many). Despite the fact that they knew their statements were false, they refused to retract or strike them. (This thread on Atama's talk page contains a discussion of the specific details.) Nor were they blocked, and now here they are making more comments in the same vein on the administrator's noticeboard where they are read and ignored by the very people who ought to be enforcing WP:NPA. I understand that some here are angry with me at the moment, but history shows that selective enforcement of policies generally leads to more problems. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The section TParis hatted is clearly in violation of the spirit if not the letter of WP:Attack page and should be deleted and/or revdeleted. Unfortunately the conversation has become so rancorous and undisciplined it appears the community has just thrown it's hands up on managing it, and the discussion of DCs alleged off-wiki conduct (there and ANI) is farcical Star Chamber stuff:

• "DC said bad things somewhere, ban him!"
• "Do you have evidence?"
• "No, we can't link to bad things, just trust me and block him." Nobody Ent 16:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Amen Ent---which is why I think the discussion has degernated enough that the RfC should be closed. It is no longer about Fae, it is now about Misplaced Pages Review, Editors from WR, Civility between WR editors and the rest of the community, etc. The RfC is no longer about Fae's actions... and the vehemence and side issues that have arisen over the past 72 hours pretty much ensure that no new independent voices will join in. And it's happening on both sides.---Balloonman 18:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
    • I saw that happening several days ago, which is why I suggested that the RfC should be closed... Prioryman (talk) 19:32, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I may be feeding the troll - again - here, but: Is it a an unsubstantiated personal attack to point out, when I'm called out to substantiate an example of homophobia on WR, I quote a certain person arguing that a director who engages in "risky sexual behavior" could put Wikimedia at legal risk? Sure, maybe this editor wasn't speaking of homosexuality; after all, it was said he was talking about legally risky "sex in a public place", as amply documented by that PG-rated picture of someone standing all by himself in a room. And maybe he wasn't really saying that, maybe he was just saying he could say that. I suppose editors should be very careful of these small, crucial distinctions in discussion.

But you'd think then that we could expect more caution from editors about "public sex" allegations which are completely unfounded, or when they suggest someone had a picture of a naked child on his web page when in fact that image was altered from a PG version a few days after the person's account on Misplaced Pages was closed down, retroactively altering how his pages appeared in the history. You'd think it would be wrong to hold an RfC about somebody who occasionally omitted a source for some trivial, correct, factual detail, then representing that as there being "no question that" he "was caught faking sources". You'd think a "no personal attacks" policy would protect the person who is describing real personal distress from abuse and harassment, not just the person leading a process against him which so far has revealed no real wrongdoing whatsoever except possibly by ArbCom. You'd think a process like that would be closed with a resounding community statement of support for its beleaguered member, rather than people coming now and then to beg that it just be deleted and forgotten about because it can't go anywhere, and not even getting that. Wnt (talk) 23:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Wnt, we've already had this discussion on the RFC/U talk page. I addressed all of your points about my comment on Misplaced Pages Review. Short version - you are simply wrong. It is not there anymore because it was all revdeleted or otherwise removed. You know that I am hindered in my ability to respond without linking to my comments on Misplaced Pages Review. In light of that, I ask you to remove your comment above and my response. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The revdeling was less than thorough (see here); besides, this is the admins' noticeboard, and they can read it all. Also, we're not even arguing about homophobia but whether it is wrong for people to allege homophobia (somewhat the mirror image of the gray zone between you saying this argument can be made and actually saying it). In general, I think that efforts to impose civility on Misplaced Pages, as we see here, can be counterproductive; people just end up arguing more and more about who is being uncivil. Wnt (talk) 00:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with civility. This section is about personal attacks in the form of unsubstantiated allegations. Prioryman made allegations that were not only unsubstantiated, they were provably false. No action was taken, even though this is a clear violation of WP:NPA. You are making a number of allegations in your statements above. In order to show the inaccuracies in your statements and defend myself against your charges, I will need to discuss the "public sex" comments as well that images. I suspect these are subjects that Fæ‎ would rather not have discussed here. You have opened up a can of worms (again). I am giving you a chance to close that can. The choice is yours. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, then, my reply is below. Apologies to Fæ‎, but discussing the specifics here was forced upon my by his supporter. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The comments of mine that Wnt references were made in a discussion of an article which had appeared in Examiner.com entitled "Wikimedia UK trustee finds his hands tied". The article featured a copy of the now deleted image File:Man_in_stress_position.jpg, which had been uploaded by Fæ when their account was known as User:Teahot (later renamed to User:Ash). That image shows a blindfolded man with his wrists shackled to a chain above his head. His pants are around his ankles, exposing his aussieBum underwear and his shirt is pulled up to his armpits. Written on his chest is "4.11.08" and underneath, "slave". In reference to the article, a WR contributor asked "What does the sex life of the pictured person have to do with Misplaced Pages?". My response is below:

I agree that Van Haeften's sexuality is a distraction in this discussion (although as Ash, he had no trouble using it as a shield against legitimate criticism by implying his critics were homophobic).

I'm sure you meant your question rhetorically, but there is a case to be made that Van Haeften's sex life may actually have some bearing on his role as a Wikimedia UK trustee. If someone engages in risky sexual practices, it may imply that they are willing to accept more risk in other areas as well. By "risky" I mean an increased risk not only to health and to safety, but also legal risk. In this case, we have what appears to be a man chained up in a public place. Note that it was Van Haeften who uploaded this image to one of the world's most-visited websites and Van Heaften who added it to articles so that it would be seen. If the man in that image is Van Haeften, what does that say about his attitude toward risk? Would you appoint this man as the trustee of a charity? Would he make a good treasurer?

I'm not suggesting that Van Haeften should be mocked for his sexual proclivities, but I am suggesting that this isn't perhaps quite as simple as you would like it to be.

My comments were in relation not to homosexuality, but to bondage, which was discussed in the Examiner piece. (Another image uploaded by Teahot/Ash/Fæ‎ was File:Hogtied male.jpg which showed a man, naked from the waist down, in hogtie bondage.) Note that I am saying that Fæ's sexuality is not the issue and is a distraction. Note that I qualify my comment with "there is a case to be made..." which should indicate that I am not offering my own opinion. Note that I say Fæ should not be mocked for their interest in bondage. I do not know if this is a language issue or some other deficiency, but no reasonable person could interpret my words the way Wnt has.

As for the image on User:Ash, it was a photograph of a naked adolescent male inserting his finger into the mouth of a flying fish taken by Wilhelm von Gloeden, who has a known association with paedophilia (as any Google search will show). (I do not know what other images were on earlier versions of the user page.) The version that was on User:Ash was this. As you point out, the image itself was later replaced with this full-length image. The user page was deleted on 25 March 2010 and the image was replaced on 28 March 2010, so the full length image would never have appeared on the page, despite how it appears on the Internet Archive site. Nevertheless, it is unlikely that Fæ is unaware of von Gloeden's associations and placing even the cropped image on his user page was probably ill-advised.

I'm not trying to stir things up here, but Wnt has made serious charges and I feel I should be able to defend myself. I gave them every opportunity to remove their statements, but they chose not to do so. While I do not wish to cause further embarrassment to Fæ, it should be said that I am merely commenting on actions which he took of his own volition. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

As I said above, all this was in the RfC history and even revdeled would be visible to admins! (same would be true if that should happen here...) But if we're repeating ourselves, I'll repeat that Fae was accused of something he simply didn't do. And regarding the fall-back argument, our article on Wilhelm von Gloeden calls him "the most important gay visual artist of the pre–World War I era". Yeah, sometimes he started up with boys somewhat younger than is now permitted in some states (of course, back then it was illegal either way), but the pedoes' claims are a fringe argument. If a person can look up to Muhammad he definitely should be allowed to admire von Gloeden as a gay pioneer. I don't think it's right for the WR editors to try to tar Fae in such an outrageous way, get called on it, then take a fallback position and keep making the same outrageous association. Heck, von Gloeden's lover was cleared of "pornography" charges for those photographs under the Mussolini regime. If only Misplaced Pages were so liberal!

I also think this revisionism about "risky sexual practices" strains my credulity. The photo described is not sexual. Nor is it risky. Nobody gets HIV from being photographed by himself in a mock dungeon stance. Nor do they need to catch it in other ways, if safe practices are used. I still think by far the most plausible interpretation is as a straightforward anti-gay canard everybody's heard a hundred times before.

I should not take it amiss if this thread finds a watery grave somewhere. If you revdel it and post a link a neutral admin can still find it. Wnt (talk) 00:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

You made allegations about me on a widely watched noticeboard. Those allegations are nonsense. Anyone can read them, but the only ones able to read my earlier rebuttal are admins, if they know where to look and bother to take the time to do so. At this point I would object to any attempt to hide my response here because it is clear that you have not learned anything from the earlier episode. I find it surprising that you think an image of a blindfolded and shackled man stripped to his underwear is non-sexual and I doubt a reasonable person would agree with you. I hope it is clear to people reading this that you have introduced something that was not in my comments -- HIV transmission -- and accused me of using some "anti-gay canard" that you yourself pieced together from misinterpretations of what I wrote. At this point, I find it difficult to believe that you are acting in good faith. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Cla68 response

Now that I have your attention, and I appreciate Prioryman's help in bringing everyone together, let me repeat that all Wikipedians from now on should avoid using ad hominem or other logical fallacies when they debate an issue. It's lazy and dishonest. Unfortunately, I myself have probably used such debate tactics in the past, and for doing so I apologize. If I ever do again, I expect to be called on it. All of you should also expect to be called on it if you use a logical fallacy as an argument. Ad hominem is probably the worst, such as the examples that Delicious Carbuncle discusses above, because it also violates WP:NPA, but using any logical fallacy is wrong. Ad hominem arguments are beneath us, and I'm sure we can all behave better is we set our minds to it. Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 23:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Does that mean we repeal WP:CANVASS? It doesn't seem to be being enforced against WR anyway. Also, we should allow users in good standing to repost the arguments of blocked users from their userpages (if they have access) or elsewhere online. Some parts of WP:Child protection could be thrown out when we evaluate editors only on what they do, not what they are. Indeed, much of the current fixation on "sockpuppetry" could be ended, as long as people don't actually cheat on votes with it. I'm sure there are a lot of other instances here I haven't thought of, but yes, getting rid of the focus on ad hominem arguments would be a good thing. But right now, complaining about them here is on the list of things comparable to "handing out speeding tickets at the Indy 500". Wnt (talk) 00:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

What in the world does WP:CANVASS have to do with avoidance of ad hominem attacks brought up by Cla68? Ever heard of a red herring (actually should use plural here since you manage to pack a full barrel of them fish in the above)? It's sort of funny that a post requesting that users watch what they say and avoid logical fallacies is immediately answered with a stack of logical fallacies.VolunteerMarek 01:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The so-called "Canvassing" rule is a one-size-fits-all mechanism for a narrow faction to defeat broad debate and broad consensus. I agree with the (sarcastic but correct) comment above that it should be completely abolished. It's anti-democratic. I vote yes for democracy. That said, what are you all arguing about here? I honestly have no clue. I DARE each one of you who have commented in this thread to check out your last 500 edits. If 50% aren't in mainspace — STOP SCREWING OFF AND GET TO WORK. Now shut this idiotic diversion down... Carrite (talk) 04:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 04:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

- Hmmm, I get 23.4% mainspace, 8.6% mainspace talk, 27.8% RefDesk, 22.0% other WP, 8.8% user, 8.4% template, 1.0% lost in the count somewhere. No idea how that scores with you. Volunteer Marek should note that each of the policies I cited judges edits according to the source, i.e. officializes ad hominem. But it's still true this is a diversion. Wnt (talk) 06:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I suspect from the deafening silence surrounding this discussion so far, that Carrite isn't the only one reacting with some bewilderment to it. All of you, do some reading at the logical fallacy article, get educated, then say "No! No more!" to logical fallacies. Administrators, the next time you see someone use an ad hominem argument, as several such have, to their shame, attempted to use against Delicious Carbuncle at the Fae RfC, I urge you to block them for it. You will see an immediate improvement in the level of discourse in debates in Misplaced Pages. Cla68 (talk) 12:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that is the reason you have had no replies. Mathsci (talk) 13:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Accusing users of engaging in personal attacks seems like an ad hominem attack in itself, since that's irrelevant to the issue of Fae's editing.   Will Beback  talk  23:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Requesting reappraisal of a block

• Edgeform (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Neurorel/Archive

• Notifications: , , .

User:Edgeform was blocked a while back as a result of the above SPI. I have become concerned that there are some contradictions in the behavioral evidence of socking, and that a good faith user may, perhaps, have been blocked in error. I've discussed this with HelloAnnyong, the blocking admin, and he thinks that I'm mistaken, which I might well be, but I would be more comfortable if some more eyes would take a look at this. I'm also notifying the two checkusers who have been involved in the SPI. This gets rather complicated, sorry, but please bear with me.

The case centers around the BLP of a San Diego-based neuroscientist, Vilayanur S. Ramachandran, and some of the pages about topics of his research. These topics include autism, which (in ways unrelated to the BLP subject himself) is something that sometimes attracts editing agendas. I originally raised the SPI that led to the block (the second in the archive linked above), based upon an IP edit, , that has a now-hidden edit summary, claiming to be an "edit by , aka Neurorel/Edgeform". At the time, it appeared to be a blatant admission of socking, and the checkuser data indicated that the accounts, including the IP, all geolocated to the San Diego area, with the two named accounts having a shared history of interest in editing in these topics.

I have also been editing the BLP, because my attention was drawn at my talk to content disagreements in which the two named accounts were among those involved. I don't always agree with either Neurorel or Edgeform, but I don't see them editing in bad faith. Their edits tend to have the same point of view, but not necessarily the same writing style. Other editors, who self-identify as being in the BLP subject's San Diego lab, tend to be very sensitive about what they perceive as criticisms of the BLP subject, and these concerns led to an earlier SPI, the first in the archive linked above, and also led to the request in my talk to look at the BLP in the first place.

After the block, an IP claiming to be Edgeform contacted me at my talk, based on my own history of editing in the BLP, and sought my help in overturning the block: here. The edits by the "outing" IP had been rather clumsy, whereas the IP claiming to be Edgeform was reasonably articulate. I discussed it with HA here, and we agreed then that there would have to be a request for block review, which never happened, perhaps because Edgeform gave up.

Since that time, there have repetitively been troll-ish edits from various IPs using public computers in the San Diego area, repeating the "edit by , aka Neurorel/Edgeform" edit summary, see: 1, 2, and 3. However, that third incident, the most recent, was different, in that only Neurorel, and not Edgeform, was named in the edit summary. Googling the supposed real life "", gives two possibly related results: a professional baseball player based in San Diego, and a young boy who has autism and whose mother writes a blog about him. I doubt that either of these persons is actually doing the editing; it could be a third person who just happens to have that name also, or it could be a sarcastic use of the name by a troll. What bothers me is that there seems to be a pattern of repeatedly trying to get both Neurorel and Edgeform blocked, by making these "look at me!" edits that are really just about the edit summary, and that, with Edgeform blocked, the edit summaries have started only naming Neurorel, who is not blocked. It does not make sense to me that a single person would be behind both the Neurorel and Edgeform accounts and also be making these accusatory/boastful edit summaries. It's plausible that the IP is someone else who actually knows of genuine socking, but it is awfully strange that they would be so persistent after the person they are accusing has been limited to a single account. Behaviorally, it seems more like someone else in the San Diego area (perhaps associated with the lab?? – but not the editor who contacted me at my talk, I'm quite sure) who just wants some editors removed from editing the subject area.

I know it's complicated and ambiguous, but I'd appreciate some additional opinions. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Looking purely at their use of edit summaries the two are very similar but there are also subtle differences. Both like to use caps and finish sentences/sentence fragments will full stops, Neurorel slightly more consistently. Both prefer double speech marks for quotations. Neurorel makes a few more typos and likes the word "reorganize", whereas Edgeform never uses it. If I was forced at gunpoint to make a decision I'd say perhaps meatpuppetry or some other form of collusion rather than socking, but since the effect is the same I doubt it makes very much difference (and I'm certainly not sure enough to want to firmly contradict HelloAnnyong). EyeSerene 12:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Neurorel is not currently blocked, fyi, although the template on their userpage says they are. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 20:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Let me, then, ask this: If (if!) we think it's more likely to be meatpuppetry than sockpuppetry (which makes sense to me, regardless of whether the accusing IP is acting in bad faith), then does it really make sense to block one account and leave the other account alone? I understand the rationale for socking (limit one user to a single account), but it doesn't seem to make sense for meatpuppets. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

ban discussion from ANI

Moved from ANI Nobody Ent 22:24, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Proposed community ban of the Beatles IP Copyvio Vandal

I would like to propose a formal and official community ban of User:Crazy1980 (which was, as far as can be determined, the first named account created by this chronic copyvio offender) and all IP socks therof. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support don't know if it's really necessary but to avoid the possibility of future dispute I'm willing to support. Nil Einne (talk) 13:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support til I'm 64. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support - also a 'lol' at Sarek. GiantSnowman 14:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Fervent support - this is the worst case of WP:IDONTHEARYOU I've ever encountered that was not linked to a cult (religious or ideological). --Orange Mike | Talk 14:57, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support - I've dealt with this yahoo before as well. There is no sense in ever engaging in conversation with this person, a complete case for WP:RBI has never been more plain. Tarc (talk) 16:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support. I don't know what practical difference this ban makes since even contributory copyright violations are to be removed regardless of who adds them, but it never hurts to reaffirm the community's stand on this matter. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 16:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Of course. Block all socks on sight and revert all their additions on sight. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:19, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support - is good to have it as a formal decision (though a ban is not a solution to a problem). --Dirk Beetstra 16:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support - rather obvious at this point. Calabe1992 16:28, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Rlendog (talk) 17:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment I already voted support above but from User talk:Mike Linksvayer, I think the user should be banned due to overusage of colour alone :-P Nil Einne (talk) 18:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support - A massive net negative to Misplaced Pages, the project is better off without this person. -- Atama頭 18:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support - A user whose sole purpose is spamming links that the community has overwhelmingly determined to be not appropriate for the project. A site-ban isn't a solution for the problem, but it does give us another tool for dealing with the disruption more efficiently. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Maybe we can sick See diff Drmies (talk) 19:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support - user who has spammed links and WP:IDHT issues, unfortunately, has no place on Misplaced Pages. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support - yes. Swarm 22:37, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support Repeatedly adding links against community standards and against consensus is very disruptive, and experience shows that no amount of discussion would resolve the issue. Johnuniq (talk) 02:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Discussion of proposed community ban

For clarification, is the proposed ban on if the user adds links, or also for when the user makes demands or any other comment regarding the links? The reason I ask is that 95.29.70.237 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has only one edit, which was not adding the link ... but is obviously the same user. Note: regardless of any outcome here, I wouldn't take action myself in blocking this IP as it would be a COI given the IPs comments directed at me. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Although, given the same COI reasoning, I shouldn't have earlier placed a block on 78.106.94.208 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). I'm mentioning it here now in an effort to be fully transparent in my actions regarding the user. If anyone feels that block should be discussed/reviewed, feel free to start a new thread so as to not muddy the discussion here with the secondary topic). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Being threatened by a user does not make you involved. That would be too easy, make sure I first threaten all admins and then start vandalising, good call if s.o. dares to block that user. That is not what WP:INVOLVED reads, Barek, that block was a good call. Please continue making them. --Dirk Beetstra 17:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, that's appreciated. Although, it still leaves the original question: is the above proposed ban on any disruption related to their demands/comments/etc related to the addition of the links, or only a ban on adding the links themselves. It appears to be on any disruption, but I just want to be sure that I'm clear on the scope of the proposed ban before supporting it (although, I will be supporting it regardless ... just want clarification before I added it in the section above). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The ban is for anything. Banned means banned. Anything and everything the vandal does should be reverted on sight and all of their accounts should be blocked on sight. See WP:BAN. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems clear now that the intent is a project-wide ban on anything identified as being the same user.

However, just to point out a minor bit of semantics in the meaning of a ban - while ban means ban,the scope of a ban can vary. Per WP:BAN, "Though a Misplaced Pages ban may extend to the entire project, it is usually limited to an article ban or a topic ban." ... which is the reason for my question regarding scope. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Frankly this should have just been called a "site ban" because that's what it is. The term "site ban" only has one meaning... Banned from all of Misplaced Pages. There are many kinds of bans... Interaction bans, page bans, topic bans, but "site ban" is pretty specific and only refers to one kind of a ban, a ban from any activity anywhere on Misplaced Pages. -- Atama頭 20:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, our policy here states, "site banned" (which may sometimes be described as "community banned" or "full ban") but that's not really accurate. A "community ban" usually means that the editor was banned by community consensus, as opposed to a ban imposed by the Arbitration Committee, or through discretionary sanctions, from WMF or from Jimbo Wales. You can be community banned from a page or topic. The policy should probably be corrected but I know how fussy people can get about editing even a single word in a policy (let alone the policy on bans). -- Atama頭 20:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, I assumed community ban made it clear it was a site ban, but yes, a full "ban ban" is what's being called for here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:CBAN links to a section that states, "If an editor has proven to be repeatedly disruptive in one or more areas of Misplaced Pages, the community may engage in a discussion to site ban, topic ban, or place an interaction ban or editing restriction via a consensus of editors who are not involved in the underlying dispute." That in no way makes it clear that it's a site ban. :p I figured it out in context, though, based on the discussion preceding the ban, which is why I supported the ban. -- Atama頭 22:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Very relevant

I've posted this in a couple of very high traffic places before: This individual has previously admitted to me he is a troll (link). De facto ban or full ban (as it will now be), I recommend in the strongest possible terms that he is reverted and blocked on sight. His only purpose is the deliberate waste of precious volunteer time, and when people respond to him, he is succeeding. WilliamH (talk) 16:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Are these very long-term blocks on shared IPs really necessary?

I'm beginning to see a big increase in long-term blocks on shared IPs, especially those belonging to schools, colleges, and libraries, but also on other shared IPs. For example, this IP was blocked for three years. Three years! Think about it, high school in the United States lasts for four years; anyone that was a freshman at that school in 2010 will be a senior before they can touch the edit button from that network! This one was blocked for two years in 2011. I understand as much as anyone that administrators and vandal fighters are tired of the bullsh*t that some of these people keep dumping on us, but some of these IPs represent many, many individuals, and anybody accessing our wiki from these IPs are barred from improving our project because of a handful of troublemakers, unless of course they have an account. To be honest, this is beginning to remind me of TK's rangeblocks on Conservapedia, don't get me wrong, I liked TK and I'm proud to be a member of Conservapedia myself, but most agree that the ruthless mass rangeblocks were just too much, and most of those blocks have been lifted because of their potential to negatively impact the project. We're supposed to be the 💕 that anyone can edit, yet some people are unable to edit because their IPs are blocked.

Abuse reports could potentially be a good alternative to these long blocks, I know a lot of people here will say that abuse reports don't work, but I've had great successes with them at Conservapedia and Misplaced Pages. For example, no vandalism has come from this IP since I contacted the school about some vandalism referencing several students' names. The school was very cooperative, and was apparently able to trace down the vandal and punish her/him. Keep in mind that was a small school, so I'm guessing everybody heard about what happened and will not want to follow in that vandals shoes. An abuse report might not stop all vandalism at a larger school, but it can stun it. This IP stopped vandalizing for a month at least after an abuse report. The problem is of course that it probably wasn't the same users vandalizing each time. Enough abuse reports and word might make it around that Misplaced Pages is not to be messed with. Another thing that has been brought up is what if filing abuse report causes problems for someone in real life. Why should we care if John Doe can't go to prom or Jane Doe gets kicked off the cheerleading squad because they vandalized Misplaced Pages? Obviously the vandal doesn't, because (s)he wouldn't be breaking the rules if (s)he did. Unless we're talking about someone in Cuba or North Korea, I would guess that someone would usually get a warning and perhaps something like detention unless they've been in trouble before for internet abuse.

I propose that we limit blocks on shared IPs to one month except where networks outright refuse to cooperate or actively encourage vandalism. But that's just my opinion. PCHS-NJROTC 01:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC) I propose that we limit blocks on shared IPs to one year, and require ISP/School/Employer/Etc contact before issuing blocks for longer than one month. PCHS-NJROTC 03:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing preventing them from creating accounts. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 01:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• My first thought is that I don't like this idea. However, I'm curious: have you ever made an abuse report for an IP, and the vandalism stopped, and productive edits started coming from there? If not, then why in the world would your labor intensive solution be better than a long block? If so, then I'll think about it some more. Three years does seem like a long time, but I routinely make {{schoolblock}}s of one year, and if those switched to 1 month, you would dramatically increase the amount of crap we'd have to deal with. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I've seen some of these IPs that have had productive contributions in addition to the malicious ones while unblocked, particularly college and university IPs. For example, this one, although never reported for abuse, was blocked for a whole year after a vandalism spree, and it has had a mixture of malicious and constructive edits. PCHS-NJROTC 01:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Almost forgot, this one, belonging to West Franklin High School, has been to abuse reports and has a mixture of malicious and productive contributions. PCHS-NJROTC 01:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• If three years is far too long, then one month is far too short. It is great to imagine the isolated cases where a new editor might first contribute from one of the problem IPs (positive: more editors), however we should also remember the draining effect on established editors of continuously dealing with the same crap (big negative: known good editors despair and depart). There have been several cases where an obviously mature individual from a school IP has requested that the IP be blocked because the individual is dismayed that their colleagues are damaging the encyclopedia—such potentially excellent editors understand the reason for long blocks and can work around them (make an account; edit from elsewhere). Johnuniq (talk) 02:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

  On the contrary. I am quite sure that a large proportion of the "please block my IP, there are many bad people here!" anonymous IPs are just trolls. However, you are right that three years is too long and one month is too short. Thirteen months is a sensible maximum. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

  • e/c I imagine there are times when long blocks are the best solution, and yes, filing ARs is tedious, but I think slapping another long, one year (or longer) block on a shared IP not long after another one has expired is the wrong approach; I think it might be more appropriate to start over with a shorter block and escalate back up to a year. As Johnuniq has described, abuse can cause established users anguish, and if an IP is harassing established users, then we need to do anything reasonable to stop the harassment. Something that disturbs me is when I see IPs that were once blocked, and didn't vandalize immediately after the block expired, but when an isolated incident of vandalism occurred, an administrator escalated to a longer block length. Misplaced Pages is supposed to be an open project, and we're supposed to assume good faith, but I can see it getting to a point where most schools and a significant number of universities and libraries are unable to edit Misplaced Pages. That's sad, to me any way. I also have to wonder about the effectiveness of blocking these shared IPs, since it seems to me that if someone wants to vandalize and can't do it at school that they would just do it elsewhere, unless they have no internet access elsewhere. I remember, when I was in high school, I would sometimes correct errors in pages (mainly typos and unnoticed vandalism) without logging into my account because I didn't want to get distracted from what I was doing (usually researching a topic). I imagine a lot of people would be bothered going home or registering an account to fix such things if they don't already have an account here. PCHS-NJROTC 02:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Also note, I never thought that we shouldn't use one year blocks, I just think that we should at least contact the network administrators to let them know that we've blocked the IP due to abuse and can lift the block if they'll cooperate. Some schools would probably just assume it remain blocked, but it should be our goal to minimize the need for long-term blocks. PCHS-NJROTC 03:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• To answer the question in the header: yes. Absolutely. We frequently get multiple people vandalising from school IPs over a period of time, so reporting to the school and getting one kid detention (if the school bothers to do anything at all) isn't going to solve the problem—there'll be another one, and another one. So we block them, and no matter how long the block is, it's usually not long after it expires that somebody is vandalising from that address again, so it gets blocked again. Renewing the block every few days or weeks instead of every few years would massively increase admins' workload.

  By way of a possible counter-proposal, we could allow account creation from schools we block, since it's easy to just indefinitely block any vandalism-only accounts that spring up. But the autoblock on those accounts would still catch anybody who tried to edit from that IP for the next few days. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:23, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• That is a good idea, except the autoblocks are hardblocks (if I'm not mistaken) and could potentially create more havoc for legitimate registered users than the soft-blocks with account creation disabled. PCHS-NJROTC 03:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• As a rebuttal to the notion that abuse reports do nothing as different people would keep vandalizing, we should encourage the IT departments to monitor the contributions from their IP address(es) for vandalism. Assuming they don't have a ton of IPs that they don't even need, it should take about a minute to pull up the contributions page every couple of days and pop every single one of the vandals for policy violations. Sooner or later, all of the users would figure out that vandalizing Misplaced Pages results in the vandal getting in trouble. Personally, if I was director of IT at an educational institution, I would do this and recommend to the principal that their computer access is revoked for the remainder of the school year as most of the ones that vandalize probably engage in other policy violations as well, especially the one's that engage in cyberbullying on here, and the OCD ones that keep coming back for more. It's their job to monitor for such policy violations. PCHS-NJROTC 03:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

  Do you have any real-life examples in mind where school authorities have done anything to "monitor the contributions from their IP address(es) for vandalism", to your knowledge? Remember we need a few thousand such instances, for it to be worthwhile... --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Someone, supposedly a cheerleader from what I've heard, got caught vandalizing Misplaced Pages in another high school in the local school district in '06, seemingly without Misplaced Pages even contacting them (and I'm still not sure if it was someone at the district or that school that caught them). This is what she did the next day, and the district blocked all of Misplaced Pages as a result. Obviously that's something we should stress that they do not need to do to stop the vandalism, and that we can manage the vandalism at our level without them needing to block all access. Additionally, when I was on the phone with an IT department for a school district in Illinois regarding Conservapedia vandalism, the IT person mentioned that they had similar problems with Misplaced Pages and dealt with it; apparently that school district would revoke the vandals' internet access for the entire school year over it. Also, I've seen evidence of action taken when vandals have sent me harassing messages from somewhere else after I reported them, in one case when I reported them to their DSL provider at home, and in one case when I reported them to their cellular provider. PCHS-NJROTC 04:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• (Per your notice on my talk), PCHS-NJROTC, I would love to stop blocking those schools and restart my writing. The current reality is that we don't have enough admin-hours even to amply warn and block, let alone contact the schools - i.e. we never know how many good editors do we scare away by blocks (surely we do), but we do know how many vandal edits come out from there. Further, more and more single-purpose accounts are being created recently for vandalism only (i.e. they are prepared to spend time on registration). A solution is more than welcome, but it needs proper thinking and a wide community discussion. Reaching out to IT departments is certainly a good idea, but I and most other admins simply do not have time for that (can WMF/ambassadors help there? - it is a top priority after all). I did have first-hand experience teaming with a college sysop to catch local Napster spam - he was a dedicated sysop and managed to identify real people with IPs in real time, but I saw how tricky that was. Materialscientist (talk) 04:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

  • I'm glad to see some openness to my idea, and I do understand that ISP is a cumbersome task; I do a lot ISP contacting for Conservapedia and it does take time to research everything and try to get them to work with you, and trying to work that in along with a job can seem damn near impossible at times. I also know that persistant vandals are annoying; I've been here since 2007 and have seen plenty of them. PCHS-NJROTC 04:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I've only once contacted anybody over vandalism: it was for this edit (note that it's been revdeleted; sorry, non-admins), and I got cooperative responses from a school admin, a police officer, and the kid that was responsible. Nyttend (talk) 04:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I usually make contact whenever someone goes bashing other people, like that girl (I assume that it was a girl based on the edit) in Indiana that's rev deleted, but that's not the only times. PCHS-NJROTC 05:00, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Something else I'd like to add is that it's not always schools that end up in this situation; I recall coming across an IP belonging to the United States Department of Homeland Security that was producing very childish and vulgar edits like the ones we see from schools, and it was on the fast track to getting blocked like the schools do. The sad thing is that it was obviously one person doing it and there were many other contributions that were legitimate from the IP, but I sent a report to Sprint's abuse contact (since it was through Sprint) and the vandalism ceased. This was sometime between '07 and '09. PCHS-NJROTC 05:00, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Then why not continue blocking IP's the way we have been doing all along, but if someone wants to contact the school, and it results in a satisfactory response, we can just lift the block? If it works, it's almost the same effect as contacting the school first. If it doesn't, then there's no harm done. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Students in schools will vandalize on the internet, and most schools do have a policy about this, but unless they actually censor outgoing traffic, it is very hard to stop them; bored students in a computer lab will try anything. Some schools I've known sometimes try to ignore the problem, some try to come down much too hard. I am reluctant to involve school administrators except in truly exceptional cases, because all too few of them are likely to take a reasonable course of action. I think long-term blocks on schools are inhibiting good faith would-be contributors as well as the others, and we need those contributors. A short term block to stop a major campaign of harassment makes sense, but long term inhibits sensible participation also. We can deal with vandalism much better than when the practice of school blocks began: we have the edit filters, which has reduced vandalism in general very considerably, and the response of anti-vandalism patrol for the ones that get through is usually very fast. We just don't need this. I suggest we end all such blocka at the end of the current school year, and see again what happens in September. DGG ( talk ) 19:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• Considering the block logs of those two IPs that you link to, I would say yes. Absolutely were the lengthy blocks necessary. I understand from a non-admin's perspective these may seem bizarrely long or excessive— I had a question on my RfA about unusually long blocks and I said something along the lines of "I would rarely, if ever, impose a lengthy block". I couldn't have been more wrong. Just working intermittently at AIV in my few months as an administrator, I've had to impose seven two year blocks and one three year block. These situations are far more common than you may realize. Also, we already have an abuse response team. Nothing's stopping our non-admin vandal fighters from going to them. Swarm 22:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• WP:ABUSE has been around for quite some time, and I was actually a member of the abuse team for a while. Unfortunately, it's horribly insufficient in my opinion; it's always required IPs to have been blocked at least five times, and now it requires that an IP has been blocked for a year at least once. PCHS-NJROTC 03:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• Most school IPs that I've warned or blocked have never contributed a single productive edit, so there's no loss to Misplaced Pages when they are blocked. Furthermore, I figure that with most long-term school blocks, Misplaced Pages is doing the school's faculty a favor, as the kids are not supposed to be editing Misplaced Pages while in the computer lab, and once editing is blocked from an IP, editing Misplaced Pages becomes one less distraction available to the bored kids in the computer lab. --Orlady (talk) 22:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• In my opinion, Orlady's second sentence hits the nail on the head: I've encountered what she mentions in the first sentence, but the second has never occurred to me. Why should we tolerate behavior that's already problematic if it's prohibited by the school's rules in the first place? My first thought is that this idea is contrary to our policy of encouraging editing by people in countries where Misplaced Pages is restricted, but I then remember that there's a massive difference between editing around government censorship that harms the whole society and editing around simple school rules that don't hurt anyone. Nyttend (talk) 02:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• This idea assumes all contributions from shared IPs are happening during class time/work time when students/employees are supposed to be studying/working. In high school, I used to edit Misplaced Pages from the library during lunch time, using a work around to access Misplaced Pages that only a few people knew about. The school administrators and district IT were okay with this. Every situation is unique. PCHS-NJROTC 00:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
• By the way, that comment I posted from a shared corporate IP while on a lunch break, which is allowed by policy. PCHS-NJROTC 03:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• We can only judge IPs (or ranges) on their edits, and trying to second-guess whether there are multiple people behind the edits can often be a wild goose chase. If a school IP produces a hundred vandal edits, I don't care whether it's a hundred different student or just one persistent student; the net result from en.wikipedia's perspective is the same, and the 101st edit is extremely unlikely to be productive in either case. Similarly, if the IP has made a mixture of positive and negative edits, we can't distinguish between a mixture of good/bad students, or just one Jekyll & Hyde student; in either case, a short block might be an appropriate reaction to a sequence of bad edits. bobrayner (talk) 00:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes We already have more than enough headaches with Vandalism. It takes a significant amount (or very disturbing) of non-productive editing to get an IP editor a block. I do however recognize the need for parole, therefore if the address has done enough to get a longer duration block (more than 6 months) that the block be limited to expire prior to the start of a new "term" for the educational institution and no more than 1 year for non-educational institutions. The purpose is to allow peer/community pressure to influence the bad apples to clean up their act. Hasteur (talk) 00:45, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

RFC on appropriate enforcement/handling of WP:NFCC policy #9

NFCC policy #9 says that non-free images aren't allowed outside content pages and specific limited administrative pages dealing with them. It doesn't say anything about how they should be handled or best practice. Sometimes deletion might be needed, perhaps sometimes it isn't and just removing (via editing) is enough. This RFC is to ask for users interested in NFCC to help draw up brief guidance in WP:NFCC for appropriate handling/removal of non-free images that breach policy #9.

FT2  02:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

File-related help and guideline pages

Am I the only one who finds our current set of file-related help and guideline pages extremely confusing? Currently we have as many as eleven different pages that all compete for the role of a first-step guidance page about images and other files, plus multiple redirects that lead to any one of them in more or less unpredictable ways. Many of these are outdated, redundant with each other, or deal with stuff quite different from what their titles say. New uploaders will often be led round in circles between all these pages until they find what we want them to find:

General file-related guidance

• Help:Contents/Images and media (redirect from Help:Image tutorial)

mainly a link list. First overview link ("Overview of Images") goes to Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Images

• Help:Files (H:IOUF):

short page, links to Misplaced Pages:Uploading images and Misplaced Pages:Picture tutorial through section headnotes

• Misplaced Pages:Picture tutorial

extensive technical guidance on positioning images on pages

• Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Images (redirect from Misplaced Pages:Images and WP:FILE)

contrary to its name, this also contains extensive technical and copyright policy advice

• Misplaced Pages:Image use policy (WP:IUP)

contrary to its name, this also contains technical and style advice that's not "policy" by any standard

• Misplaced Pages:Uploading images

duplicates much material also in Misplaced Pages:Image use policy

• Help:Viewing media (redirect from Help:Images)

brief page, almost entirely redundant to others above

• Misplaced Pages:Extended image syntax

technical, largely duplicating Misplaced Pages:Picture tutorial

• Misplaced Pages:Creation and usage of media files

deals largely with non-image media

• mw:Help:Images and other uploaded files

central help page on MediaWiki

• Help:Misplaced Pages: The Missing Manual/Formatting and Illustrating Articles/Adding Images

yet another page that attempts to cover everything at once

Copyright-related guidance

• Misplaced Pages:Copyrights

mostly deals with text copyright and licensing issues, external re-using etc., but is also linked to as the central policy explanation from many image-related templates

• Misplaced Pages:Non-free content (WP:NFC, including WP:NFCC)
• Misplaced Pages:Non-free use rationale guideline

Specialized pages

• Misplaced Pages:File copyright tags
• Misplaced Pages:Gallery tag
• Misplaced Pages:Preparing images for upload
• Misplaced Pages:Requesting copyright permission
• Help:File page (redirect from Help:Image page

(also duplicates much material from Misplaced Pages:Image use policy and Misplaced Pages:Uploading images)

This stuff should be consolidated into probably no more than five main pages:

• WP:NFC
• one page dealing with all other file copyright and related policy issues (including the core contents of WP:IUP, WP:FUR and Help:File page and an overview of related CSDs), with Misplaced Pages:File copyright tags as a sub-page
• one page dealing with technical matters of file formats, resolution etc. (Misplaced Pages:Creation and usage of media files, portions of Misplaced Pages:Uploading images)
• one page dealing with technical guidance on how to display files (merging Misplaced Pages:Picture tutorial and Misplaced Pages:Extended image syntax)
• Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Images, reduced to that core content that is really style guidance and nothing else

Thoughts? – Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Persistent off-wiki and cross-wiki harassment / Community ban proposal

Addressing the systemic concern

• I have started m:Requests for comment/Meta-wiki requests for comment on users. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 04:16, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Just a sidenote: The above discussion contains a quote that was taken from a comment I made about the origins of Meta. Few Wikipedians would know that Meta was originally set up to handle all policy, policy discussions, noticeboards, disputes, etc for Misplaced Pages. This was around October 2001, several months before we had the Misplaced Pages namespace. When the Misplaced Pages namespace was created in 2002 there were a few of us (eg. Larry Sanger, myself) who actively campaigned for keeping all non-article-related material on Meta. Obviously we lost that debate, all policies moved into the WP namespace, Larry left the project (for unrelated reasons) shortly afterwards in mid-2002, and it's never been an issue since (so much so that most people don't even know that was ever the case). I was quoted as if I was currently agitating for a fundamental change to how WP works, whereas in reality I was simply relating a bit of ancient history. Manning (talk) 08:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Is all of this kerfluffle-promotion now of any actual benefit to anything? Collect (talk) 12:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Misplaced Pages is not a place for disgruntled users to go around attacking and harassing our productive volunteers. Jehochman 13:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

That meta-meta-RfC seems to have caused quite a few users banned from en.wp to come out of the woodwork over there to oppose the demise of their soapbox. Meta gives Misplaced Pages Review a good run for the money in that respect. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 14:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Is it a place to go around attacking and harassing our unproductive volunteers? Nobody Ent 14:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Are you one of them? Them who created the page are to blame for the ruckus. It is not okay to stand around and watch when an innocent person is attacked by thugs. Jehochman 14:47, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages should not be a place for disgruntled users to go around attacking and harassing anyone; your unnecessary "productive" qualifier implies some category of users (IPs? Socks? Trolls?) are fair game. Nobody Ent 16:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

You are arguing a logical fallacy. I mentioned "productive" to highlight the different between "banned" and "productive" as this is an exacerbating circumstance. One "productive" editor harassing another is also not good, and even a "productive" editor harassing a banned user is also not good because that sort of goading can create negative results. Jehochman 18:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Is anything in the allegations worth looking at?

Checking this out. My personal opinion is that there was nothing biased or outrageous about Gwen Gale's actions. There's never been an RfC on Gwen Gale, which would seem to suggest that she's not a problematic admin. But I know some sections of the community are keen that admin conduct is examined. Having said that, Mbz1's allegations are way over the top, and from my long experience in dealing with complaints, once things have got to this stage nothing will satisfy the complainant except someone's head on a pole, so looking at it here probably wouldn't resolve anything. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I consider this mess to be a systemic failure. Meta needs to understand that they do not have the power to review ArbCom decisions. At times I've been very critical of ArbCom, but the way to address that problem is to vote for different members at the next election. We need to have a process to globally ban users who engage in cross-wiki harassment. I'm not sure how to go about that. We should not allow grudges to be carried from one wiki to another. Any advice would be appreciated. Jehochman 14:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

A m:global ban is possible for a user banned from at least two projects. However, given the self-righteous mission of meta admins to review en.wp ArbCom decisions, I doubt that's going to happen in this case or ever. Meta-wiki is basically a WMF-sponsored Misplaced Pages Review in that respect. Whether they'd ever have the balls to do anything overriding en.wp decisions is another matter though. Right now they seem content to enable banned users to soapbox endlessly over there. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 15:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I intend to change that situation, if necessary by WMF office action. Jehochman 15:06, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Why don't we hold an RFC to tell Meta that they can do whatever they want, we don't really care what they come up with on there and they're wasting their time? (You see that? I used all three).--v/r - TP 15:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Meta could have a useful role in evaluating whether dispute resolution processes work correctly on WMF projects, and advising WMF with well-considered opinions when it is necessary to reform or reset their administration. There is always a chance that any wiki will fall under the control of some clique that abuses its power, even en.wiki. (On the other hand, the same could happen to WMF...) But arguing RfC/U cases about specific users on other wikis seems unreasonable. As with an appellate court, the question should be whether the process was flawed, not what the verdict should be. Wnt (talk) 15:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Meta does not have any power to overrule a local decision, not even with global bans. When it comes to problems with one user on one project, RfCs really won't accomplish anything other than raise awareness. We do get quite a few banned enwiki editors on Meta, although this is the first RfC I've seen made by one of them. Ajraddatz (Talk) 15:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The war of rhetoric is building up . ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 16:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Can we put the feud with Meta aside for a minute Assume they are just a bunch of clucks who will let anyone graffitti their wall. I posted this question because I don't want anyone to say that allegations about an admin were being swept away because of a feud with Meta. Instead, we have Tom Paris suggesting that the complainat should be banned here for no other reason then to send a message to Meta that they do not govern en.Misplaced Pages - which rather left me shaking my head. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Just for the clarification, that was more an expression of my frustration over the arrogance it takes to think they can dictate dispute resolution to use rather than a real !vote which is why I said it should be taken as a neutral !vote in parenthesis. I just feel that en.Misplaced Pages has the most complete dispute resolution process and tougher sysop prerequisites than any other project and some sysop on meta who didn't have to go through half the RfA that any of us did, then an additional month long vote and (ceremonial) appointment by Jimbo to the role of Arbcom shouldn't feel they have the right to judge and jury the English Misplaced Pages. Besides, they have no technical capability to fulfil their decision anyway (besides the global sysops) and they should stick to their own sandbox. As I said, it was in frustration and not a honest !vote that I said what I said and I made that clear in the first edit (no subsequent edit to clarify what I meant) that it was in actuality a neutral !vote.--v/r - TP 20:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't you have some sort of red telephone you can use to call Meta and straighten things out? There's a rule if you send more than two emails trying to straighten something out, pick up the phone instead to avoid misunderstandings. Jehochman 18:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

No, there is no such "red phone"--project-to-project leadership coordination is actually quite lacking, and essentially accomplished only through informal links among those who participate in multiple projects. Jclemens (talk) 18:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Besides, meta-wiki doesn't have an ArbCom or a Jimbo, so there's no clear "supreme" authority. m:WM:RFH (their AN equivalent) is already swamped with threads related to mbz1's RfC on Gwen, so it's not awareness that's lacking over there. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

In fact, my experience is en.wikipedia to other project communication can often be poor with many users from other projects not always happy with the way en.wikipedia people approach their projects or agreeing with our blocking and banning policies, and en.wikipedia people confused by the rules or allowance of banned/blocked users and their content in other projects. (One thing of course is that very commonly many people in other projects have some experience at en.wikipedia but of course most en.wikipedia users have little or no experience with the other projects.) Of course usually they stop any attempts to comment on people at en.wikipedia but I guess it's more difficult here given meta's purpose. As with EotR, I'm not convinced the way we're approaching the situation there is helping anything, in fact it seems to me it's just going to further convince them that perhaps there are problems at en.wikipedia. Nil Einne (talk) 18:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, let's cut to the chase: which concerns about Gwen need addressing, and how do you propose we address them? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 19:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I never said any concerns about Gwen need addressing. What gave you the idea I did? I have little experience with GG, but the consensus here and at the meta RFC by meta participants who I presume have analysed whatever evidence was presented appears to be that there's no legitimate concerns. Nil Einne (talk) 19:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Mkay, so are we supposed to have some sort of show trial then, in which nobody believes the concerns are real, but we do it anyway to appease someone at meta? WP:BURO? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 19:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm further confused by your comments. No one at meta seems to think the concerns are real either as I've already said. However it's clear that the way we're (well at least some people from here) approaching this is not helping convince those at meta with less experience of our systems that our dispute resolutions systems actually work or that we're fair to every user. Quite the opposite. (Note that I'm not saying either is true, simple that our approach is giving that impression.) And for those who already have a poor view it further re-enforced that view.

In other words, rather then helping shut down the RFC quickly and efficiently, what we've done is made it worse. And we're far less likely to convince them to change their policies and how they handle RFCs in the future or at least not in a way many here desire. And whatever we do achieve, it's likely to be a much more torturious process then it had to be.

This isn't exactly surprising, treating people like they're an enemy that needs to be destroyed rarely get them on your side. Of course what it does do is get their backs up and make them disinclined to believe anything you say, and think that perhaps those complaining about you may have a point. To put it in a mildly rude way, being an arsehole to someone just makes them think you're an arsehole. (If we're supposed to be the 'better' wiki, we definitely haven't shown it in this dispute.)

There's no reason why we couldn't have approached this in a clear and even forceful but calmer, politer, well argued way, following their rules as much as possible and treating them as fellow wikimedians rather then an enemy. If we had done so, I suspect a much better outcome would have been achieved and perhaps they would now be actively considering a better RFC policy, rather then the insane crosswiki mess we have now where it's not clear that anything productive is really going to come out of this. Perhaps even that RFC would have been deleted or blanked by now.

P.S. I'm not saying they've been perfect. But I don't really regard myself as a metadians and have very limited experience there so it's not for me to comment. Further, while 'they started it' may be a childish argument, it is IMO the case that we seemed to be the primary instigator of the mess we have now. In any case I agree with Bobrayner, it's generally better to discuss metadian actions on meta; on meta. Which is after all what we're asking for here.

Nil Einne (talk) 22:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Mutual assured destruction aside, hasn't ArbCom reviewed this already? From the not-so-confidential-anymore email that ArbCom sent to mbz1, I would have thought so. If someone who isn't blocked on en.wiki wants to bring a RfC/U here on Gwen Gale for the multiple accounts stuff or anything else, I'm not sure what's stopping them. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The Wyss account was begun in 2004 and blocked at the user's request in 2006. That's an incredibly long time ago. Those matters can't be reopened now. Jehochman 18:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

If there was ever a justified "tl;dnr", this, and the barrage of words on Meta, must be it. I make no judgement here about any of it except Jehochman's assertion above that matters between 2004 and 2006 cannot be re-opened now. In general terms, if a behaviour or set of behaviours started then and is continuing into the present, it would seem to be very important to know just how long it has been going on. Bielle (talk) 19:06, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The matters were hashed out long ago. The complaint was raised by a chronically disruptive, community banned editor. Sorry, no, they do not get the satisfaction of putting a good faith user through the wringer. Jehochman 19:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• I am astonished by the abusive, nasty behavior of the admins over there. I would fully expect ArbCom to hand my head on a plate if I acted like that over here. I know they aren't used to en.WP style uber-drama over there, but an admin participating in a discussion and then edit warring over a deletion tag, and threatening to block anyone who dares to revert him? And conversations just shut down while people are still adding comments because those admins don't think the request is valid, regardless of what consensus is arrived at? The whole affair makes me sick. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The same admin just indef blocked me without talk page access over there. Something is very rotten in Denmark when the guy defending a banned users right to attack someone over there for things that happened here can indef block me for saying something he didn't like. And I can't even appeal it on-wiki because he cut off my talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I guess they are very fond of playing overlords when "admin abuse" on some other wiki is brought to their sérénissime attention, but they have a giant blind spot for their own petty, autocratic behavior. Meta = Animal Farm. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 20:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

He isn't involved in the discussion, he is involved in keeping meta as clean of enwiki drama as possible. Your personal attack were why you were blocked, not the fact the you were arguing on the opposite side as him. Ajraddatz (Talk) 20:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's totally fair, an indef block with no talk page access and no email access, applied by the very user who was the subject of said attack. I linked to WP:DICK, which is hosted at Meta and this is the fair result from a good faith admin just doing his job? Bullshit. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) Yeah, right. He is "keeping meta as clean of enwiki drama" by abusively closing early the deletion discussion multiple times so that actual user consensus can't be formed. And blocking users who protest that action. And the "RFC" your metapedian wizard is so carefully protecting contains soapy commentary like "self-pitying" and "shameful, childish, dishonest and cowardly retaliation", words penned by author of the RFC. I rest my case. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 20:39, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion on meta:User talk:Nemo bis#Deletion closure is also instructive. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Also m:WM:RFH#Involved_block.2C_WizardOfOz_and_Beeblebrox. It looks like there are some sane admins on meta after all. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 21:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Although the original drama-thread is an obvious cross-wiki problem, secondary discussions here about edits on metawiki process by metawiki editors could be unhelpful; we don't need even more interwiki drama. Having read through a lot of diffs there (and tried to contribute to the RfD) I was very disappointed, and moved to make a rather frustrated comment, but specific criticism of metawiki activity should preferably be done on metawiki. It's possible that I'll get banned there, but I'll cross that bridge when I get to it... bobrayner (talk) 02:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Floating an idea

Since there's no ArbCom on meta-wiki but they love RfC/Us so much, how about we start a RfC/U on User:WizardOfOz and User:Nemo_bis, both of whom are responsible for abusively closing the Gwen "RFC" deletion discussion multiple times. I'm not sure what the best venue would be. Meta might not be a good idea unless you want to get blocked over there for "intimidating behavior". Given that off-wiki harassment is actionable on en.wiki, and the two meta admins have clearly taken sides in that, a RfC/U on en.wiki has cause, I think. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 21:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• I intend to appeal my block, if they will grant me a way top even do that, and I certainly think Wizard is an absolute disgrace of an admin, but just as the discussion there will have no effect here, no RFC here can influence anything over there. I find it comical that an admin who was acting the bully and openly threatening to block anyone who reverted him would turn around say I was the one doing the intimidating and proceed to block me for it. And he took the coward's route, denying me any avenue of appeal right off the bat. It is clear to me that Meta is severely dysfunctional if this sort of abusive admin behavior is considered acceptable. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Your reduced to twenty two hours - congratulations - oh noes ...there is clearly something wrong in Denmark - Youreallycan 22:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Don't be so sure about the opposite direction. A sizeable number of users from en.wiki asking the WMF or Stewards to relieve these two guys of their bits has some chance of succeeding. Hopefully, they'll see reason before it comes to that. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 21:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Let's not do that. They are probably doing many useful things. This matter is outside their area of expertise so they have fumbled it badly, but we can forgive them if they will agree to be more clueful in the future. Jehochman 22:37, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

We all know...

...that no matter what "consensus" Meta-Wiki comes up with in regards...well, anything, we have no reason to follow it. And, seeing what's going on over there, I don't feel we should follow any decisions they make whatsoever unless there is a clear consensus here to do so. At this point, I really see no purpose to Meta-Wiki at all. They just seem to be a clique of people who fancy themselves rulers of all language Wikis, while having absolutely no power as it is. Silverseren 20:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

That sounds about right. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, they do have some practical power over all wikis, like via the global abuse filter and probably a few other bits. So we can't just let anyone be in charge over there. The meta-wiki pages have the same high google juice as most other Misplaced Pages sites. Let meta turn into soapbox where banned users can attack whoever they want with impunity? Their RFC/Us aren't non-indexed by default. True, almost everyone can put a blogspot page up and get practically the same result on google. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 21:16, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Then we clearly need to take some sort of action about this abuse of power and, really, the abuse of the trust of the English Misplaced Pages community. Silverseren 21:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I cannot even find anything about a de-adminship procedure on Meta. The only kind of de-adminship their process pages say anything about is for inactivity. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The blocking administrator on Meta has an account here as WizardOfOz. Is it not possible to request arbcom to review his actions on other WMF sites if they are directly related to en.wikipedia? He saw fit to leave Gwen Gale a note here which seems a little bit odd. Does this not count as acting as a proxy for arbcom banned users? Mathsci (talk) 22:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

As a courtesy I have informed WizardOfOz about this discussion. Mathsci (talk) 22:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

It appears he is not very active here, his primary user page is on the Bosnian wiki here, perhaps leave him a message there. Youreallycan 22:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

No. Leaving a user notice is not proxying. Let's focus on getting the deletion discussion restarted. That would be more productive than starting tangential issues like this. Jehochman 22:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Apparently you've been shut down on that count again. They sure don't like dissenting opinions over there, do they? Beeblebrox (talk) 22:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Irony alert. Apprently he expects a higher standard from our admins . This guy likes making with the accusations, as he accused me of edit warring (with him, but he leaves that part out) threats (actually he threatened me) and trolling, which is just odd but not unexpected. Luckily cooler heads have prevailed in regard to my block there and it's been reduced to one day. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The whole thread on User talk:Kwamikagami is surreal. Mathsci (talk) 22:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, WizardOfOz would probably not pass a RfA on enwiki if his usual demeanor in a dispute is like in that content conversation. We can tell he isn't exactly acculturated to enwiki polices on sources, verifiability, and no original research, besides exhibiting hostility and edit warring. This part was funny:

It is obvious edit warring, and you just did it again. I will give you a chance to revert yourself (I'm going to bed now), but if you continue I will report you and ask to have you blocked. I contend that your sources are not reliable. — kwami (talk) 13:22, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

This is a threat of an involved sysop. I´m not going to revert myself as it is a edit in good faith and acceptable by all rules of the project. And as a sysop and crat, I can´t imagine that there will be someone who is prepered to block me because of one edit that is sourced and improvement. Good night, and ping me tomorrow when you are awake so we can end this discussion and find a way out. Just leave me something on meta or bswiki. --WizardOfOz (talk) 13:30, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

No wonder he prefers that dispute resolution on meta be used to overrule enwiki. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 03:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Looks like he has decided to crash and burn . The block is totally worth it if it results in him not being an admin there anymore. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • The powers that be seem to have talked with WizardOfOz over there. (PeterSymonds reverted his post there in the next edit.) Mathsci (talk) 23:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Plus Mathsci (talk) 23:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
      • The user has also removed his crat and admin rights on meta - you couldn't make it up. Youreallycan 00:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
        • Background to that . ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 04:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

By the way, this comment suggests that the meta-wiki RFC conflict might have been seen by some as an opportunity to force a change in m:Stewards policy. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 04:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Good grief, and FYI...

I don't see M's RFC as a particularly productive enterprise, but discussing it "here" and then going "there" to make waves isn't particularly productive either. The "regulars" at meta (or commons, or pretty much any other WMF project) tend to have the same reaction to a bunch of WP admins (and noticeboard surfers) suddenly showing up as the WP admins (and noticeboard surfers) tend to have when a huge contingent from WR shows up here. Some of you are also behaving like stereotypical American Tourists and loudly bossing people around there as well.

The stewards aren't going to barge in tomorrow and start taking away people's block buttons willy-nilly in any case. Relax. --SB_Johnny |  04:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I think there's a substantive difference between the two scenarios you mentioned. Misplaced Pages Review is non-WMF site where some people discuss, rant about, and occasionally outright attack some Misplaced Pages editors. Although it sees some (occasional) serious participation from enwiki Arbitrators etc., nobody in their right mind thinks that WR has any sort of WMF mandate to solve problems on Misplaced Pages. In contrast, Meta-wiki is a WMF-run site that vaguely claims to be the wiki to rule them all, and where some admins assert a nebulous right to host somewhat official reviews of editor conduct from other WMF wikis. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 07:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, the analogy is singularly inappropriate. Meta is a place that has no "community" and no autonomous purpose of its own, other than that of serving whatever members of local projects "suddenly turn up" to get their business done. Its "regulars" are truly just janitors, whose job it is to make the place work for those who, like us, come there maybe once or twice a year, or once in a wiki-lifetime. And if they don't do that job properly, they indeed deserve to be "bossed around", as loudly as the situation requires. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:37, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The point is, Fut Pref, that our sysops and ArbCom members go through a much more thorough process to confirmation and authority than theirs. More is expected of our sysops and higher standards of conduct are required. WMF has constant and direct involvements with out sysops and Arbcom. There is no reason that a project of tougher qualifications should be judged by a project of easier qualifications for authority. This is like a circuit court of appeals being judged by a local high school student court. And WizardOfOz's martyrdom (the request for global block, not the self desysop which was respectable) is exactly the behavior that a 'crat and sysop shouldn't have. The analogy is accurate and appropriate.--v/r - TP 14:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe a misunderstanding here – were we talking abut the same "analogy"? :-) I was referring the comparison made by SB Johnnie above, between Meta admins objecting to an invasion of en-wikipedians, and en-wiki admins objecting to an invasion of WR'ers. On what you just said, I quite agree. – By the way, I note with considerable amusement that I too have now been blocked on Meta, by an admin directly involved in a dispute with me, who is now claiming he "didn't remember" we had a dispute. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the analogy is actually pretty accurate, but it's an analogy about the perceptions of the local communities. The more you accuse them of being incompetent and/or power-hungry and/or corrupt (which are rather similar to "WR-ish" criticisms of the regime here), the more they'll circle the wagons (which is -- again -- what happens here). Try putting yourself in their shoes for a moment. --SB_Johnny |  16:09, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yeah, they are really twitchy over there when it comes to criticism of their wikiturf. Apparently you get tagged as a WP:SPA over there if you don't troll the place all day long like users banned from enwiki. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 16:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I asked Courcelles on Meta to look into FPaS's indefinite block on Meta. The blocking adminsitrator, Nemo_bis, does not seem to have an account on any part of wikipedia in any language, but I could be wrong. Mathsci (talk) 16:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

To be fair, it's not an indef, just 48hrs. Or at least it was the last time I looked. :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Most sincere apologies :) Mathsci (talk) 17:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I hadn't realized that it was for disagreeing with Ottava rime that you were blocked. TMathsci (talk) 19:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Again User:Nemo bis has an account here. It's hard in those circumstances to understand his conduct on Meta. (I have left a notification on his talk page here.) Mathsci (talk) 17:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Fut Perf - Yeah, we were talking about different analogies then. I was referring to the One wiki to rule them all reference.--v/r - TP 17:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

And WizardOfOz is globally locked. Good riddance. Goodvac (talk) 18:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• It is now clear to me that Meta, in addition to its stated purpose, is a gathering spot for malcontents who have been banned or indef blocked from this project, along with users from other Wikipedias who have grudges against this project because it is the largest and most well known Misplaced Pages. However it has also become clear that these users are not in total control of that project, there are some in the administration there who possess common sense and ability to judge things objectively. I think the problem is that is such a small project that if only one or two admins are around, and they happen to be in the camp that dislikes en.WP, their obvious contempt for users from this project and their rejection of our opinions on subjects germane both to this project and that one can cause serious problems. Not that I acted like the paragon of civility either, I tend to react badly to being bullied. What i find ironic in this whole episode is that some of the Meta users, and indeed some users right here are complaining about us barging in to the clubhouse over there when the reason most of us showed up was exactly because we didn't believe a dispute from here should be allowed to continue over there, and those very same users were defending the right of these banned users to do so, some going so far as to suggest that is actually part of Meta's purpose, to give people we kicked off a place to bitch and moan and endlessly challenge the outcome of disputes here. As we all know there is in fact a website specifically created for that purpose, but Meta is not it. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:48, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

What does meta even do?

My only participation at meta thus far has been to join in the related GG discussions. In the meantime I've been looking all around and trying to figure out just what purpose meta serves beyond global account locks, the global blacklist and hosting WP:DICK. As far as I can tell, it's some kind of obsolete governing functionary group that has been dead ever since Misplaced Pages was granted self rule nearly 10 years ago. Like the Queen of England, a leftover anachronism, but without even the respect and ceremony that position holds. Can someone explain to me exactly what they do over there? Night Ranger (talk) 16:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be worthwhile to invite some folks who are active at meta to answer your question. It might also be beneficial if more of us went over there and helped out. There are lots of tasks that are common to all the Wikipedias, such as software upgrades. Meta has an important role to play coordinating those activities. We should also suggest more productive methods of handling cross-wiki disruption. Jehochman 16:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, as far as I understand, there are a few actual decision processes done on Meta, like closing or opening new projects. Also, the field of global RfCs or other global dispute resolution processes is something that there is certainly a need for (though rarely with individual user RfCs as attempted here). For instance, there's certainly a need for a big meta-RfC to be held one day about all the smaller projects that completely refuse to play by foundation rules when it comes to image licensing, non-free content and fighting copyvios. In situation where the whole admin corps of a project collectively and systematically refuses to enforce common policy standards, the possibility of a binding meta-process would be sorely needed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Good to know. I was genuinely confused about their function. Night Ranger (talk) 16:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The also host a "process" by which confusion in interwiki links is supposed to be solved, m:IS, although that's mostly broken. And they host cross-wiki efforts like the m:Controversial content stuff (reports and referendum on the image filter etc.) and m:Stewards elections (which are currently ongoing, by the way). More details here. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 17:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Has anybody asked Jimbo for his comments in this matter? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 19:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, see this discussion (now archived automatically by MiszaBot III. Goodvac (talk) 19:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• It amazes me that all of this has been going on while people seem to have no clue what meta is or why it exists. Meta serves many roles, including translation organization, fundraiser organization, global policy determination and implementation, assigning and removing global groups, mediating conflicts on smaller wikis. As I have said before, Meta does not govern enwiki in any way. There are some technical features, such as the spam blacklist and the title blacklist which affect all WMF projects, but other than that Meta has no editorial, political, whatever control over enwiki. The point which seems to have been avoided by just about everyone here is that the Gwen Gale RfC would not have resulted in any action - it is well outside of the scope of Meta to be screwing around with enwiki affairs. RfCs around unresolved issues on large wikis serve to facilitate further discussion on the matter, not result in a definitive course of action. RfCs are more for smaller projects that do not have the facilities to handle such things - and yes, that means that the Gwen Gale RfC was a waste of Mbz1's time. It amazes me how often people forget than the WMF hosts hundreds of wikis - about 515 open ones right now. Meta is more for about 400 of the smaller projects than it is for large wikis. What Meta is not is an outdated system in place from the first years of Wikimedia - it is an active body which coordinates many cross-wiki activities. Ajraddatz (Talk) 22:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the main reason most users here don't know much about Meta is that, as you say, we really don't need it as it is intended to help out smaller wikis. Which makes one wonder why some admins there fought so hard to stifle discussion of deleting said RFC and why there is such a large contingent of users who are openly hostile to this project hanging about over there. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, their purpose is not so much helping as it is bossing around. It's just that now that en.wiki gets a taste of it, you guys take note. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 23:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

View from uninvolved, random guy

This meta vs en.wp showdown is patently ridiculous. I think the en.wp needs to formulate a local policy as to the relationship between meta and their so-called "rule" over all other projects. Possibly this policy needs to be endorsed by ArbCom so as be unified in this view. This sort of dramamongering on the part of some meta admins is really disruptive to this project. 140.247.141.165 (talk) 19:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

View from semi-involved, not-so-stochastic guy

As much as I try to refrain from commenting on the drama boards, I feel a need to respond to the concept of a "Meta-EnWiki" showdown. I am lucky enough to be able to have perspective both as a Wikipedian and as a Wikimedian, and I think most of what went on here could have been prevented. For better or for worse, the English Misplaced Pages is the 800 lb. gorilla of the Wikimedia projects. We have the most articles, the most editors, the most readers, the most coverage, and the most reach of any Wikimedia project. Unfortunately, we also have a pretty unique culture, specialized rules, and more space dedicated to procedure, as opposed to content, than any other wiki. To navigate these issues, most EnWikipedians develop certain techniques to handle process and policy. When we go to other English-speaking projects, it is natural and human nature to continue to behave in that fashion. However, the other projects often have different policies, guidelines, or even unwritten cultures than we do. So it is very understandable that when a group of EnWikipedians starts commenting in another project in a fashion that would fit in with WP:ANI, that would engender resentment. Our "drama boards" have, unfortunately, become very argumentative, and respectful discourse is the exception not the rule. As much as I would like to take that kind of behavior and excise it from our project, it is there. Other projects may not be as confrontational as we have become, and using the "EnWiki" style of demands and proclamations will only serve to further the idea that "EnWikipedians are a bunch of rude oafs who try and bully everyone around them." For goodness sakes, read the WP:ANI or WP:RfAR archives and see how confrontational we can be.

To place the shoe on the other foot for a moment, think about how we would feel if a group of Commons editors came en masse and starting posting images that we would feel violate WP:BLP, but not Commons:Photographs of identifiable people, and then complain when we take them down. Did any regular reader of this board who is not a regular on the Commons know that that our BLP policy is local, not global, and that the Commons has a looser view when it comes to images of living people? Meta's m:Biographies of living people policy is even looser. It is incumbent on editors to understand the policies and guidelines of the project they are in before making suggestions.

The primary among Meta's purposes is to be a place where matters relating to all wikis are to be discussed. It also serves as the place where various wiki-processes are performed for projects too small to have full processes of their own, be that RfA, RfB, CU, OS, opening and closing projects, AND dispute resolution. Similarly to EnWiki, there is an unwritten culture that has developed over the years at Meta, and one element of that culture is that Meta tends to view itself as a forum of last resort, so being banned on a project does not automatically make one banned on Meta. Personally, I think that this is an important escape valve to prevent small wikis from being taken over by a cadre of people who start banning anyone who disagrees with them. So for someone to make a complaint on Meta about something that happened on another project is not unheard of. It isn't that Meta is going to "take over" EnWiki—that is not going to happen. But it serves as a venue for for certain valid complaints. Unfortunately, it also gets abused, like any process on any wiki. In my opinion, this particular RfC (Gwen Gale) was an abuse of policy as I've posted there, at the ongoing discussion at m:Requests for comment/Meta-wiki requests for comment on users (in the comments section), but that does not mean that ALL discussions would be automatic abuses. Those for EnWiki should be very rare, in my opinion, because we have a robust (if dysfunctional at times) dispute resolution process. As an aside, while I would not want EnWikipedians trampling like a herd of bison all over the process, it does affect all of us, and well-thought out comments, either for or against, should be helpful.

If I could impart one thought from this tl;dr screed of mine, it would be that when we EnWikipedians go to other projects, especially English-speaking ones, we should ensure that we know the appropriate polcies and guidelines about the project we want to edit, take some time to try and grok the culture, think thrice before we post (especially early on), and AS ALWAYS, never be confrontational when polite and respectful will do. Remember, other projects have as much right to have their own cultures (foundation-permitting) as we do, and just as we want them to respect ours, we need to respect theirs. Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 23:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Racepacket

Resolved by motion at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Motions that: The Racepacket case is supplemented as follows:

The Arbitration Committee has determined that, as User:Racepacket has on two occasions on 4 February 2012 breached his interaction ban, he is indefinitely site banned from the English Misplaced Pages. The user may request that the site ban be reconsidered once a minimum of twelve months have elapsed from the date of this motion passing. In the event that Racepacket violates either the site ban, or the interaction ban, the minimum period before an appeal may be submitted will be reset to twelve months from the date of the violation.

For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 20:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Discuss this

Need Help

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

Can Someone Protect Page List of Secret Mountain Fort Awesome episodes Or Tell 74.88.23.45 (talk · contribs) To Stop Adding Unnecessary Titles I Have Undid His/Her Information 3 Times And Him/Her Has Not Found Any Source For It. Thanks d} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aozz9 (talk • contribs) 21:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• I'll look into it--but this is not a matter for this board. Requests for protection are at WP:RPP, but there is no need for protection in this case. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 21:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Help request

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

Can anybody elp me in making a Men in Black (franchise) portal. I think it's a good franchise, and most of all, with the upcoming 3D movie, many articles in the franchise need updating. I hope anybody or somebody can help — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.198.217.185 (talk) 00:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Template:Rescue

Having been deleted following Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 January 13#Template:Rescue, the deletion reviewed at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2012 January 27 the template has been re-created, I have taged to for WP:G4 (which was removed with the edit sum Its no longer been added to anything. I don't think you can speedy delete it. No harm in leaving it for historical reasons and to prevent broken links) I then restored it to the Deteted template messages version which has also been reverted. Can a administrator please look into what's going on and protect the page. Mtking 00:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Historical retainment of templates (and many other things) is commonplace. It is clearly not meant to be in use, as it states on the page, but is retained so that old page revisions that would contain it do not have broken links instead. I don't see the problem here. Historical things shouldn't be deleted. Silverseren 00:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Mtking, not sure you realize, but the rescue template is wrapping inside of a template of it's own that marks it as an old template on any pages it's used on. Go try to use it in the Sandbox and see for yourself.--v/r - TP 00:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but no, the ARS should not be allowed to retain it in this fashion like some sort of martyr's rock. If it is to remain as something other than a redlink, then it should be clearly labeled as a deleted template and not still fly the lifesaver imagery. Tarc (talk) 00:48, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Tarc, that seems a bit harsh. We don't need to hold over their head our 'victory' in TfD and DRV. The template is clearly marked and wraped in another template that prevents it from being used. It only exists in this fashion to prevent the redlink {{rescue}} in old revisions of articles.--v/r - TP 00:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Why is the "This template is deprecated" text not enough? Reyk _YO! 01:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed the "This template is deprecated" text is enough, it is not as if the template contains any information that related to the article it was placed on. Mtking 01:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Note. Due to the (silly) ongoing edit war on the template, I have just protected it for three days. I'm off to sleep now; fellow admins, feel free to unprotect without asking me should a consensus emerge here. Salvio 01:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't {{Tdeprecated}} be used in these cases? →Στc. 01:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think so: it says that the deprecated template has been replaced by another one, while it was my impression that the TFD said that this one should be removed and not replaced. Nyttend (talk) 01:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep Its not being used any longer, nor hurting anything at all. What possible reason would there to be to destroy it? You won. You somehow got enough people to show up to convince the opinion of the closing administrator to prevent it from being placed on any articles in need of Rescue. For historical places that link to it, its best to show what it was, instead of a dead red link. Dream Focus 01:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

This isn't a deletion discussion; you don't need to add a vote to your comment. By the way, is this edit considered simple enough and housekeeping-like enough that it's appropriate while the template is protected? I immediately self-reverted; the only reason I did it was to make it easy for you to understand what I'm asking about. Nyttend (talk) 01:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but this is an obvious G4 speedy. Kept because article histories contain its usage? Seriously? There are literally hundreds of deleted templates that show up as redlinks in article histories. I'd like to see a very good reason why this one deserves special treatment. Resolute 01:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree. There doesn't seem to be any real need to keep it around, other than some kind of shrine. Reyk _YO! 01:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• We generally delete templates because they're unfixable, because they're redundant, because they're unused and won't be used, or because they violate core policies. As this one was deleted because of the way it was frequently used, rather than because of a design problem or because it was never used, deletion isn't as helpful of a solution. The discussion's goal was to ensure that this template wasn't transcluded or substed in other namespaces; its preservation with the notice of deprecation will go along with the result of the TFD without causing the problems with tons of article histories that would result from deletion. Nyttend (talk) 02:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• One of the prominent arguments in the deletion debate was that this was redundant to the real AfD template. Also, this is now unusued and won't be used. So tell me again why this shouldn't be speedy deleted? Resolute 05:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• If you look at the discussions at AFD and DRV, it's clear that the consensus was not for pseudo-deletion or faux-deletion, but for deletion. How is this not a {{db-repost}}?
  Tangentially, I tagged {{ARS/Tagged}} and {{Afdrescue}} for CSD yesterday (although the former was removed, for some reason). Both of them should go to the same place that {{ARSnote}} is now, and where {{rescue}} ought to be. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 02:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• As soon as it is unprotected, I will file another TfD, then. This isn't about lording over ARS...if I wanted to do that I would have joined the recent ANI attacks against their deletion discussions...it is about respecting the consensus of the Misplaced Pages community. The consensus was that this thing should be deleted, not left intact with some weird "we won't use it" pledges. Tarc (talk) 03:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • And shit like this is why ARS has the reputation it does. Creating nothing but pointless drama. Resolute 05:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Question Do we keep other old transcluded templates to help make sure previous versions of articles appear correct? If or if not, why is {{rescue}} special such that it should deviate from the norm? In other words, can we de-politicalize this and look at the underlying (at least, as stated) issue. Jclemens (talk) 04:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Templates are routinely deleted without any consideration as to how they will make old versions of the page look. I happen to think that's a mistake (it is probably technically feasible to have articles display the template as it looked at the time the revision was made, even if the template has been edited since), but common practice is what it is at the moment. NW (Talk) 04:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

In this case since the template added nothing of significance to the article, why not just have it produce "white space" then fully protect the template. Mtking 06:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Jclemens' question is the relevant one here. I've never seen a deleted template get re-created for the sole purpose of ensuring that old revisions look nice. It may be that it happens from time to time and I've never come across it, or it may be that it happens rarely or never. If it does happen from time to time, I highly doubt it would happen on something that doesn't affect the content of an article, like a maintenance template. I can't imagine it would ruin someone's day to see Template:Rescue on an old revision instead of the life-preserver template. If this type of template re-creation is truly as uncommon as I think it is, then I see no reason to apply special treatment to this particular template. —SW—  08:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Right, who cares if our articles look like crap, as long as the bureaucratic niceties are preserved? Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

It's old article revisions. They arn't exactly pretty with or without the template because of that big red bar at the top. I personally don't care if the template is kept for historical purposes, but that argument is flawed.--v/r - TP 14:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete. ((TFD==Delete) && (DRV==Endorse) == Redlink). Page histories are full of redlinks and other brokeness; relax and breath normally; this is ok. This is a camel's nose to get this all overturned. Alarbus (talk) 16:22, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• I knew the ARS radicals were getting desperate, but his is just stupid. We don't need to discuss this, because we already did, twice as a matter of fact. The community has already spoken, and it said to delete thos template, and then it said it again. Whoever recreated it needs to be blocked for deliberate disruption per WP:POINT and the template, in accordance with the already clearly expressed will of the community, needs to be deleted. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't recreated; it was restored, along with the talk page. Kanguole 02:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• Question: Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the instructions for the template that after the article survived the AfD the template was to be removed? I ask because if the only argument for restoring the deleted template is that it preferves the look and feel of the article historically at that point it shouldn't be restored in it's full glory. A simple 1 liner of "This article was tagged with the Rescue template" that links to the ARS (or it's successor) page explaining about what the rescue template was. It satisfies the need to indicate that the article was tagged and also minimizes the amount of influence said tag has. Hasteur (talk) 01:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

One (of the meany issues) that were discussed at the TfD was the wikiproject "advert" in main space, so any link to the ARS would not be acceptable, I also don't see it as acceptable to keep a template for only history reasons (see my comments below). Mtking 03:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• It is not true that this treatment is totally unprecedented. See Template:Expand and Template:Deleted template. Not common practice but not totally invented out of whole cloth by the "desperate" ARS. 169.231.55.218 (talk) 03:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• not to mention the fact that it was recreated (albeit just with the "this template was deleted" text) by the admin who deleted it in the first place! 169.231.55.218 (talk) 03:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Can you point me to the community discussion about using this {{Deleted template}} ? as it seams to be the work of just one editor ? I can perhaps see the logic for having while current versions of articles use a deleted template, however when all examples have been removed then the template should just be removed.Mtking 03:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Kinda "Strange"

A new article Peter Latham (born 1937) was created with biographical information that actually matched a subject named Nigel Doughty I reported it as a potential hoax/attack/vandalism. The article subsequently completely changed the biographical prose away from the false subject. I suppose it is now correct and don't know what happened at first. It is unusual that the article creator was able to remove the CSD tag without the bot replacing it? And the article does fail inclusion standards. My76Strat (talk) 02:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks like it was intended to be a memorial page based on the creator's username, RIP Grandpa 1937-2012. I've deleted the page per A7 and left a note on the user's talk page. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Deleted now as stated, but anyway, my good-faith-o-meter says the article's creator started with a copy-paste so he could copy the layout of the infobox, as well as the style of the lead sentence. Looking at his other contributions, I don't see anything concerning. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Those are good points. Originally I was looking for sources to hopefully let the editor's article remain. When I was confronted with the disquieting possibilities, and possible impact on the remaining living members of the Doughty family I did want the matter reviewed. I am still curious to how he removed the CSD tag without it being replaced which I have seen to be common. My76Strat (talk) 02:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The bot probably skipped the page because you placed a customized speedy template on it. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Very good, thank you. I suppose this is otherwise resolved. Cheers - My76Strat (talk) 03:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

RevDel requested

It's late, I'm sleepy, and I can't rightly remember how to get the IP address removed from the history of the text of my talk page--see recent history, please. And pardon my being braindead right now. Drmies (talk) 06:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

•  Done delete revision text option. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

TV Syndicated Shows

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

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

We have a MAJOR MAJOR problem here! Users keep adding syndicated shows to TV Station articles! This information is irrevelant!!! I demand that we need to stop adding syndicated shows to TV station articles! And that's final!!! 03:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ACMEWikiNet (talk • contribs)

This is not the appropriate place to deal with issues involving content. Kevin (talk) 03:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Please see dispute resolution. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

(Moved) Issues at Cold Fusion

Moved to ANI: IRWolfie- (talk) 09:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Heads up: unapproved survey of inactive administrators

Hi all. I just wanted sysops to know that in the last 48 hours a banned editor -- James S. editing under Nrcprm2026 and other socks -- emailed ~300 admins on the inactive list with a survey. It's not particularly a cause for alarm, other than that...

1. It says I am the Foundation point of contact for this survey. This is untrue, and the Foundation did not request or approve of the survey.
2. The survey was not reviewed at all by the volunteers/staff of the Research Committee. (That group tries to keep the number of frivolous surveys to a minimum.)

While I am sympathetic to anyone who cares about retention of admins enough to do research, I am pretty mad that there's nothing we can do to prevent this kind of mass email from a banned editor. Apologies to anyone who was confused or annoyed by the survey. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 17:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I've removed Nrcprm2026's ability to send emails. Could you specify which other accounts were used, so that they can have email access removed as well? Or should we block access for all of his 80+ socks? Nyttend (talk) 19:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

If it isn't too hard, I would suggest they should be. It's already been demonstrated Nrcprm can't be trusted with email. Unfortunately if they have that many socks, it sounds likely they'll just create more so it probably isn't that useful. Incidentally, if they're mass emailing people with a small number of accounts (or even one account), perhaps this would help to reenforce the view to the foundation that the proposals to find some way to attempt to limit such abuse (arising out of the mailinator aided abuse of some wikipedians) are important? Nil Einne (talk) 20:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

This isn't really an en issue but if this foundation is concerned about the way this was handled or that the emails were misleading, are there any plans for a global ban? I ask because it looks like the survey was developed on meta meta:Inactive administrators survey and there was actually some discussion about the survey with Philippe meta:Legal and Community Advocacy/Community Advocacy. Nil Einne (talk) 21:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Steven is right in its points. This survey was not at all under Rcom supervision or review. It is problematic to me that someone send message with clearly false content about the involvement of others --Lilaroja (talk) 23:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm surprised that we allow users to use the email system to send 300 messages. Is there a legitimate reason to send even 30 messages in a day.

Anybody else interested in helping out at the copyright problems board?

I would dearly love some increased admin involvement over there. I was, I have to admit, struggling with burnout on that work months ago (having focused on it for years), and while I'm still putting time into it every weekend I cannot keep up. More assistance there would be very much appreciated. I'm happy to offer guidance based on my own work there to anybody who's interested in helping out. We also have WP:CPAA with guidance for admins interested in helping. This area is sorely in need of some additional hands. :/ --Moonriddengirl 01:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Administrative backlog