Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:32, 23 March 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 ClueBot III when more than 4 sections are present.

• WP:CR
• WP:RFCL
• WP:ANRFC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other areas tracking old discussions

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

Administrative discussions

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

(Initiated 25 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 23 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 92 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 72 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 62 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 53 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 46 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)

Talk:Nikolai_Rimsky-Korsakov#RFC_on_Infobox_for_Nikolai_Rimsky-Korsakov

(Initiated 37 days ago on 2 December 2024) The last comment on this was on 24 December 2024 and Legobot has removed the RFC tag. An independent closer (preferably an admin) would be welcome. Many thanks - SchroCat (talk) 15:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

•  Done Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:25, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Deletion discussions

Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion/2024 November 27#File:The Musician (Erling Blöndal Bengtsson) by Ólöf Pálsdóttir.jpg

(Initiated 41 days ago on 27 November 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

•  Done Stifle (talk) 11:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 19 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 105 days ago on 25 September 2024) Open for a while, requesting uninvolved closure. Andre🚐 22:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump#Proposal: Age and health concerns regarding Trump

(Initiated 84 days ago on 16 October 2024) Experienced closer requested. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:57, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Winter fuel payment abolition backlash#Merge proposal

(Initiated 71 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 62 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 42 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

Clear logging of restrictions and arbitration enforcement actions

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

User:Prioryman was recently blocked due to what appears to be an inadvertent violation of WP:ARBCC sanctions. When those sanctions were enacted, they were applied to the account that Prioryman was using at that time. Prioryman invoked his right to vanish with that account, but he returned and is on his third account since then, by my count. The logging of the recent block seems rather convoluted "Prioryman (talk · contribs) blocked 24 hours for violation of sanctions (while not named above, he is also subject to these sanctions per ArbCom). He was unblocked after admitting error (made inadvertently) and promising not to do it again". There was a discussion about some of these issues on the ArbCom talk page last summer, but as the recent logging shows, the situation has not improved.

Sanctions are an agreement between an editor and the community not to engage in actions that have proven in the past to be problematic. Prioryman's many sanctions (both ArbCom and other) are not listed under his current account name, making it impossible for the community to determine if Prioryman is abiding by those sanctions. I request that all sanctions which apply to Prioryman be properly logged (either by adding new entries of simply updating the username) and that sanctions which are logged correctly identify the sanction which applies to the user. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:17, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The sanctions in question are both ArbCom and community imposed. Since the enforcement of any sanction is necessarily done by admins, why would AN not be the appropriate place for this discussion? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:09, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The only pages you linked to were ArbCom pages; presumably if you want ArbCom to explicitly add Prioryman to the list of accounts topic-banned from climate change, they're capable of saying yes or no to that request. Also, didn't you just request an interaction ban with Prioryman? Why are you still opening noticeboard threads about him if you want to not interact with him? 28bytes (talk) 19:29, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I thought it was quite clear that I wanted all of Prioryman's sanctions to be properly recorded, not just the ArbCom ones. If there are other users who have sanctions listed under previous usernames, I would like those to be updated also, but this is the only such case that I am aware of at the moment. I asked for Prioryman to be banned from mentioning me outside of dispute resolution processes, which I would still like to see, but this has nothing to do with his behaviour or actions, simply the correct recording of sanctions and proper logging of violations. Perhaps you wouldn't mind re-opening the thread now that you understand what I was asking? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:56, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

As I've told you elsewhere, it's none of your business, and furthermore it's yet more pathetic petty harassment - you were lucky to avoid a ban last time I highlighted your misconduct. Didn't you request an interaction ban with me? Whatever happened to your apparent wish to disengage? Prioryman (talk) 20:08, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Sanctions, especially community-imposed sanctions, are the entire community's business. The sanctions exist - why would you object to having them properly recorded? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:20, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Cla68 (talk) 23:38, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Looking through, it really doesn't seem a major issue given the context. The block was logged by a sitting arbitrator and so it appears Arbcom does not want to openly link these accounts (even though it is public knowledge). As far as I was aware the only listed sanctions against Prioryman are via Arbcom (the Scientology one, which is listed for both his previous and current account, and Climat Change, which admittedly isn't - and indeed isn't listed on Editing Restrictions). If you would like to list the active community sanctions against Prioryman's previous accounts I am sure someone will go through and update the notes. To update Arbcom sanctions you do need to talk to Arbcom. Given your prior interactions with this user (I thought you were both voluntarily under interaction bans??) this was probably not a good way to have gone about the issue, though. --Errant 15:14, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

DC has refused an offer of a mutual voluntary interaction ban and he has already been told that this issue has nothing to do with him. The fact is that he is a troll and serial harasser who narrowly avoided being banned from Misplaced Pages in January for harassing and outing another editor off-wiki (see Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive737#Delicious Carbuncle harassment and outing: block or ban proposal). He is currently maintaining a thread on me on Misplaced Pages Review and his latest foray above is just another chapter in his campaign of harassment and vigilantism on and off-wiki. The closing administrator in the earlier discussion on DC's conduct castigated what he called DC's "WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior". DC demonstrates this on a virtually daily basis with his attacks on other editors on Misplaced Pages Review, and unfortunately this is just another example of the same thing, evidently in revenge for the earlier ban proposal (which I raised). In short, please do not feed the troll. Prioryman (talk) 15:53, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Prioryman, I am currently under two interaction bans, which are listed at Misplaced Pages:Editing restrictions. The community can see them and, if they wish to, check that I have not violated those sanctions. Since you have had a number of different accounts since your sanctions were imposed, I am asking that they be updated to point to your current username. If there are other cases were this applies, I would ask that those listings be updated as well, but yours is the only case of which I am aware. This is really just a procedural request, although there may be issues related to yoru prior exercise of WP:Right to vanish, so it is worth having a discussion. You are the one adopting a battleground mentality here by making accusations and name-calling. I would happily accept a mutual interaction ban, provided it was binding and that it excluded dispute resolution processes, as I have said before. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:25, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Lets not not get off down this track (slinging accusations) or I will close down this thread - but if you both want a voluntary interaction ban I will happily "impose" one on you. --Errant 16:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I would be very happy for you to do so, frankly. DC refused an earlier offer of a voluntary interaction ban when I proposed that he should respect it off-wiki as well, i.e. not continue his ongoing harassment thread on Misplaced Pages Review. It should also be a total interaction ban from all forums on Misplaced Pages, including dispute resolution, which he has abused as one of his main vehicles for harassing other editors. His refusal says much about his lack of willingness to disengage. Without an interaction ban these collisions between us will keep occurring - not because of anything I'm doing, but because of his ongoing battlefield mentality and his malicious agenda. So if you want to avoid that, please, by all means, impose an interaction ban, though DC should really be banned from Misplaced Pages as a whole given his history of vile behaviour. Prioryman (talk) 16:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I ask that dispute resolution processes be excluded from the ban, specifically arbitration enforcement, but since it seems that both Prioryman and myself now desire for an interaction ban to be imposed, so ErrantX, if you would like to impose one, please do. Given Prioryman's record, I would prefer that it be imposed and binding, rather than voluntary. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

What DC is looking for here is a partial disengagement on terms favourable to him, to allow him to continue attacking me on and off-wiki while hindering my ability to call out his misconduct. It's a typically cynical approach. If there is to be disengagement, let it be total. An end to interaction must include dispute resolution processes because that is one of the primary means through which DC has carried out his vindictive harassment of multiple editors, using Misplaced Pages Review to whip up antagonism against specific individuals. We saw this in the case that I raised on AN/I in January that brought him to the brink of a site ban. DC seems to think that he is empowered to act as a vigilante. He makes very few edits in article space (check out his contributions) and appears to spend most of his time on Misplaced Pages on various noticeboards or on Misplaced Pages Review attacking other editors. It would actually be a very positive step to ban DC from noticeboards (specifically AN, AN/I, RFC and arbitration-related. If he has any interest in improving the encyclopedia he has yet to show it, frankly. I also repeat my earlier call for DC to commit to disengaging off-wiki as well, by ceasing his repeated attacks on me on Misplaced Pages Review. He has refused this call before, which demonstrates how insincere he is about wishing to disengage. If he is sincere he should agree. Prioryman (talk) 18:30, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

ErrantX, I note that the accounts have already been linked in one listing of editing restrictions. I believe there are other community-imposed or voluntary sanctions that are not listed, aside from several ArbCom sanctions. Perhaps Prioryman can list the sanctions that he is aware of to save some searching? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:30, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Note also that this thread was prompted by an admin questioning why Prioryman had recently been blocked for violating sanctions. That admin checked the ARBCC pages and Prioryman's talk page history, but was unable to understand the block. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

As the bringer of the action it would seem logical for you to simply list the sanctions you wish to be updated - I assumed you were aware of them, directly, given that you brought up this matter. I'm willing, personally, to humour what you are doing here to the extent that if you can quickly lay out what needs to be recorded, with the minimum or drama, then it can be all sorted out without fuss. If this is just going to turn into another lengthy slanging match between the two of you then I suspect community patience will become exhausted. (as to the latter issue; that really is something you have to take up with Arbcom - perhaps get a clerk to record the sanction on Editing Restrictions, or whatever). --Errant 16:39, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

DC has conspicuously not brought it up with Arbcom. He is rather obviously trying to do an end-run around them. Prioryman (talk) 16:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

There is a partial list at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Macedonia_2#ChrisO_desysopped, but I recall a more recent and longer list (possibly in the ArbCom case regarding Cirt). I am unable to find it using the search facility here and it is quite likely that some has added a NOINDEX to the page so that it won't show up in Google searches. Prioryman is already participating in the discussion and must be aware of the sanctions he is currently under - it seems a bit silly not to just ask him to list them so that they can be properly recorded. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Trolls don't have the right to make demands. Prioryman (talk) 18:30, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposed interact ban between Delicious carbuncle and Prioryman

Well, this is getting tedious. Since both parties clearly don't bring out the best in each other, I'd like to propose an interaction ban. Specifically, I'd like to propose an extended ban that covers off-wiki taunting (or "discussion", if you prefer) as well as a ban on using noticeboards to further these disputes:

• Delicious carbuncle and Prioryman are banned from interacting with each other in any way, including:

1. editing each other's user and user talk space for any reason;
2. replying to each other in discussions;
3. referring to or commenting on each other anywhere on Misplaced Pages or off, either directly or indirectly; or
4. undoing each other's edits to any page (whether by use of the revert function or by other means).

• In addition, the exceptions listed in WP:IBAN would not apply:

1. no reverting each other, period.
2. no more noticeboard threads.

These terms are a little stricter than the standard terms for an interaction ban, but as has been pointed out, an interaction ban that allows one party to continue to annoy another with off-wiki postings and repeated noticeboard threads isn't much of an interaction ban at all, and it's clear one is needed between these two editors.

• Support as proposer. 28bytes (talk) 19:02, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Question How in the world are we supposed to restrict anything done off-wiki? Nyttend backup (talk) 19:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
  • The usual way: an editor can present a link to an uninvolved admin, and if it's clear a party is not following the terms of the interaction ban, that admin can follow the usual warn/block/escalated block process. 28bytes (talk) 19:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Your use of the words "the usual way" implies that this is a normal part of interaction bans. I am not aware of any other interaction ban which includes such a provision. This would be an open opportunity for anyone who bears a grudge against me to make statements off-wiki which are critical of Prioryman and sign my name to them. It has happened to me before. A Google search for my username will bring up comments -- that I did not make -- about a since-banned person with whom I was in a dispute. This suggestion is simply ridiculous and would set a very bad precedent. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

• comment - the off wiki clause in this suggestion appears to only relate to DC because there is no suggestion Prioryman has been commenting off wikipedia about anything, and translates as, if Delicious comments, directly or indirectly, about Prioryman at all on wikipedia review he will be blocked onwiki, is that corect? - Also , is it correct that this suggestion would not allow , Legitimate and necessary dispute resolution? Youreallycan 19:10, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Dispute resolution would be limited to asking uninvolved admins for assistance, or contacting ArbCom if that's found to be unsatisfactory. The idea, though, is if they aren't interacting, there shouldn't be disputes to resolve. 28bytes (talk) 19:22, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: Although 28bytes attempted to close the original thread on specious grounds and stated that they would likely not participate when they agreed to let me reopen it, a few hours later they are proposing an extraordinary interaction ban. This is a completely unnecessary action, since both Proryman and I have agreed that ErrantX should impose an interaction ban. Any kind of sanction that includes off-wiki activities is unenforceable. I have no intention of laying myself open to false accusations from Prioryman who lied in his attempt to have me banned. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:24, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Tell you what, since you've both agreed to let ErrantX implement an interaction ban, I will withdraw my proposal and let him decide what the terms of the ban should be. My recommendation to him would be not to allow loopholes that allow offsite poking or the use of noticeboards here to further disputes, but I will defer to his judgment and let him make the call. 28bytes (talk) 19:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
    • That sounds fine to me. Thanks for all your help. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:40, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
    • I would be entirely happy with 28bytes' proposals. DC's concerns about supposed "forged" posts in his name is entirely bogus. He is user 5544 ("Carbuncle") on Misplaced Pages Review and unless he's in the habit of sharing his login details with other people, anything that user posts is directly attributable to him. The need for an interaction ban that extends off-wiki is shown by the fact that in the space of less than two weeks this month, he has posted about me five times on WR - that's almost every couple of days, an almost obsessive level of attention. Youreallycan is right that I've not commented off-wiki about anything, so there really is nothing comparable on my side. 28bytes is also right that there shouldn't be disputes to resolve, and in fact there aren't - DC is creating issues, and needless drama, by intervening in matters that don't involve him. Prioryman (talk) 19:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
      • Again, the sanctions which you are under are the concern of everyone in the community, even me. As of right now, the community is hampered in evaluating whether or not you have kept to those sanctions, because they are listed under User:ChrisO, not your current username. Some may not be listed at all. They are not secret, yet you have refused to list them simply because I was the person who requested it. The drama here is not being caused by my simple request, but by knee-jerk reactions from you and 28bytes. Your bluster has managed to divert the conservation away from the subject at hand -- recording your snactions and logging your violations -- to the tired topic of how discussing your edits off-wiki is somehow harassment. I have no intention of accepting any kind of restriction which imposes limits on what I can say on other websites. I have suggested that dispute resolution processes are exempted from any interaction ban so that either of us may use them if necessary. That is where you should be making your allegations, not on admin's talk pages in attempts to have me sanctioned for what should be drama-less procedural requests such as this one. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
        • And I guess that the ChrisO commenting on Christopher Monkton here is not you? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:19, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
          • It is exactly this kind of needless taunting, and digging up of ancient off-wiki links, that needs to be stopped. It contributes nothing and only raises the temperature. It's blatant WP:BAITING and yet another example of your persistent battleground mentality. You are the aggressor here and a very persistent and tiresome one at that. Prioryman (talk) 20:28, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
            • And that is exactly the kind of diversionary tactic I would expect when you are again caught in a lie. To set the record straight about who the "agressor" is in this dispute, I do not believe I had any interaction with you until you involved yourself in the ArbCom case regarding User:Cirt. You quite blatantly lied about your previous involvement with Scientology-related articles and proceede to attack me there. I do not know what inspired your antipathy toward me, but you were hostile from that first introduction. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
              • Enough. One more comment from either of you on the other, including in this thread, and you're blocked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:52, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Proposal Beam both editors down to Cheron, leave orbit Warp 8. Or in wikispeak- indef both and be done with it. Nobody Ent 20:39, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Captain, I don't know how much more emergency power we can take before we start to break up. -- A Certain White Cat 20:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Can someone just pass the interaction ban and get on with it? Prioryman (talk) 20:43, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I have sent Errant an email requesting actioning of the interaction ban - if you guys just return to your corners and enjoy yourselves elsewhere till then - that seems to be the best idea - thanks - Youreallycan 20:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Alternate Resolution

Ok; sorry that I have been AFK for a bit :) It looks like this degraded, as I feared it would - I came back online to find a number of people asking me to come in and comment further, or close, this. Here is what I suggest, given that you both simply cannot get along.

• A full on-wiki interaction ban between the two of you stopping any interaction, of any sort. excluding dispute resolution processes.
• We can't really enforce an off-wiki interaction ban, however if Prioryman wishes to raise issues of off-wiki harassment (no comment either way on whether that has happened or not) I recommend, if he wishes, an RFC/U where he can demonstrate an issue and request sanction. Such an RFC/U would be exempt from the interaction ban, but with a very low tolerance threshhold for the slanging match going on above.
• I will contact Arbcom in the next couple of days in relation to DC's opening request in this section, regarding the recording of sanctions against Prioryman (but only once this has died down) and see if I can resolve that matter.

Hopefully that addresses *everyones* complaint... if you're happy with that please just briefly say so below (no more slanging matches) and we'll do that. (the alternative is I slap a broad interaction ban on you both now, as the community seems to be getting tired of pointless bickering of the sort above). --Errant 22:46, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

An interaction ban that excludes dispute resolution processes is not acceptable. DC's favourite venue is "dispute resolution" noticeboards, generally defined. Read what he said above: "I ask that dispute resolution processes be excluded from the ban, specifically arbitration enforcement." That's a clear statement of intent that he wants to continue hounding me. There needs to be a total disengagement. I do not have an ongoing dispute against DC. DC, on the other hand, keeps raising disputes against me on and off-wiki, as this thread has shown. This needs to end once and for all. No more loopholes. Prioryman (talk) 23:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

How is it a loophole? Don't do anything that would require dispute resolution with DC. That way, if it is attempted, it would be obvious to everyone that it is without merit. Arkon (talk) 23:11, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

DC doesn't contribute to article space in any significant way. We have no overlap in terms of editing articles. However, he seems to have taken it on himself to "police" my edits and has repeatedly and spontaneously intervened in matters that simply don't involve him, as in this case. He has harangued both me and the Arbcom about my edits (and got slapped down for his troubles, I might add). He's shown every sign of intending to continue to do so. Virtually all of our interactions to date have been in the context of "dispute resolution". Put simply, if you want this dispute to end, you need to stop him interacting with me in any venue on Misplaced Pages. ErrantX has suggested a broad interaction ban. I'm all for that. Prioryman (talk) 23:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, I tweaked that out and reworded it (and the section). However I suspect now DC won't like it. It makes it very hard to find a middle ground and get you both to disengage. If that doesn't work, then 28bytes suggestion above, via community consensus, is likely our last avenue. --Errant 23:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Frankly I couldn't care less whether DC likes it. The bottom line is that there needs to be a permanent end to this dispute, and that simply can't happen if there isn't a total disengagement on both sides. I don't want to perpetuate this but DC has given clear notice that he wants to perpetuate it. That's why only a total disengagement will work. And I'm quite happy with 28bytes' suggestion, by the way. Prioryman (talk) 23:24, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Prioryman, by the way, did you start this dispute between the two of you? Cla68 (talk) 00:11, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Fut. Perf. has asked that DC and I not comment on each other, so I'm not going to take that particular WP:BAIT, thank you very much. Prioryman (talk) 08:18, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

My aim here is to put an end to the constant on-wiki attacks, allegations, lies, and vitriol from Prioryman. That was why I asked for a topic ban weeks ago and why I am willing to accept a reasonable compromise now. To be clear, when I say "dispute resolution processes", I am not referring to either WP:AN or WP:ANI (both would be included in any such ban). If it helps, I can agree to limit myself to arbitration enforcement, Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations, and RFC/U participation. As noted by Cla68, an RFC/U is not something that I can launch without a co-endorser, so I assume that no one would object to my participation in an RFC/U involving Prioryman should one ever be initiated. Similarly, if Prioryman had genuine concerns about my off-wiki activities, an RFC/U would probably be the place to have that addressed, and I would have no objection to one being filed by him. It seems perverse to bar someone from highly moderated administrative processes. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:33, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

No, all those fields are included in the ban. And I strongly recommend you should begin acting as if it was already in force, now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:42, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Future Perfect, I'm not seeing consensus yet for the restrictions as requested, so I don't think DC, or Prioryman, is bound by them yet. I for one, am opposing the proposal until it allows DC to be a co-signer on any future user conduct RfCs. DC and Prioryman, I recommend not accepting the proposed interaction restriction as currently written. Cla68 (talk) 07:16, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

• By the way, I disagree with including dispute resolution processes in the interaction ban. As you know, user conduct RfCs require two or more endorsers. DC should retain the option of being an endorser on any future user conduct RfCs posted on Prioryman, as DC does have a legitimate grievance with Prioryman . Cla68 (talk) 00:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
  • That kind of squabble is exactly what this interaction ban is meant to end, so it would be rather silly to leave a loophole for further continuing it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
    • RfCs are very helpful at resolving disputes, as they invite broad community input. So, I think it would be more helpful to allow RfC than to to ban it. Cla68 (talk) 07:18, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
      • Absolutely not - allowing RfC or arbitration enforcement is just another way of saying that you want the dispute to continue. If it is to end, there must be a total disengagement and there must be no room for fresh arguments to be started (and do please note that I didn't start this thread). Prioryman (talk) 08:14, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
• There's a curious asymmetry here: the original issue is that Prioryman had a comment deleted and was blocked for inadvertently breaching WP:ARBCC#Scope of topic bans by participating in a discussion about the topic ban on another editor: as discussed elsewhere other topic banned editors had apparently participated in that discussion, but were not blocked. One of them, Cla68, is participating above, arguing to extend the venues for this dispute. On precedent, Cla's contributions here should be deleted, and a token block imposed on his record. Whether that is done or not, a complete disengagement with the same wide-ranging scope as the ARBCC is appropriate and has my support. . . dave souza, talk 09:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

So we are at an impasse then? One wants total disengagement, the other wants certain avenues to remain open. Realistically I don't see how this will work out for both of you and, to be honest, I don't see how this can be solved except without some sort of community discussion (unfortunately). I have wasted a little while digging into this sorry mess, so some thoughts:

• DC, given your past history with this user it was, at the very least, extremely bad judgement to have opened this request - and insisted it remain open. (FWIW the right avenue might have been to privately ask an uninvolved user to raise the issue). Given that you recently expressed a desire to have no interaction with prioryman you are definitely at fault here for persisting the matter.
• I am struggling to see exactly why dispute resolution would be needed as an exemption; is the suggestion that no one else is capable of keeping an eye on prioryman and raising issues with his editing? Or is the intention to contribute to future DR raised by other editors? In either case, I don't really see the urgent need.
• Publicly commenting on users off-wiki with whom you have a dispute on-wiki strikes me as the height of bad manners, and simply fuels the fire.

The fact you, DC, now have multiple interaction bans against you indicates a continuing problem. Flicking through your recent & older contributions I notice you spend a lot of time pursuing perceived problem editors, and other forms of "policing". This is not in itself a major issue, someone has to, but it looks like your approach leaves a lot to be desired. I recommend reflecting strongly on how you interact with others, and consider spending more time contributing article content - it can be a relieving process :)

• Prioryman; DC has raised an important point here, that you may have active sanctions against you that are not receiving scrutiny. I'd strongly encourage you to take steps to correct the recording of all those sanctions - if for nothing else then to avoid the perception of impropriety.
• Your hands are far from clean in this dispute, and there are a number of recent incidents you could simply have not been involved in by virtue of not taking part... so I counsel burying yourself in content work and ignoring anything else for a bit.

Both of you need a good shake, and to be set down somewhere far away from each other. And you need to stop commenting on, pursuing or raising issues with each other (both on and off wiki). There are plenty of other people capable of doing that for both of you. Absolutely nothing seems to be gained by allowing the two of you any leeway in interaction, but much (mostly peace and quiet) seems to be served by splitting you up. --Errant 09:30, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm very much engaged in content work (see ) and I have absolutely no wish to interact further with this individual. I didn't want to on this occasion and nobody asked him to start this thread. I'm not involved in any content disputes with him or any other editor, we have no overlap in terms of article editing and I'm certainly not engaged in providing a running commentary on him on or off-wiki. My record of contributions speaks for itself and has attracted a great deal of praise from other editors (see my user page), with whom I'm working in perfect harmony. The last thing I want is to be repeatedly dragged into disputes by people who have taken it on themselves to "police" my edits. That's why I want a total disengagement, and I agree completely that nothing can be gained by allowing any leeway, such as a "dispute resolution" loophole. As for the past sanctions, I will be having a discussion with the Arbcom about that. Prioryman (talk) 13:10, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

• On a related note, Future Perfect at Sunrise owes Delicious Carbuncle 10 cents. Cla68 (talk) 22:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
• Whatever else we do here, could we please ensure that Prioryman's sanctions he accrued under his earlier accounts are clearly logged? He already misrepresented his past once, invoking RTV, and then returning and claiming last year to have no prior involvement and no knowledge of a topic area in which he was and is under sanctions. It seems to me we are talking about everything here but Prioryman's prior sanctions. So what are the prior sanctions? What, if any, community sanctions are there, in addition to the three arbitration cases? We really do need to establish that. JN466 02:41, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Attribution question

Hi. I have an question about attribution that's been bugging me for a while and thought this might be the right place to ask. Firstly, can admins move categories to other namespaces? I was under the assumption they couldn't, but if the answer's yes, feel free to ignore the the rest. So here's what happened. Cej10 (talk · contribs) created what was essentially an article at Category:Children's books about death. This was clearly inappropriate for a category, so Good Olfactory (talk · contribs) moved the text to Children's books about death and I tagged the talk page of the article with {{copied}} to provide attribution. So far, so good. But then the category was taken to CfD (see CfD) and the consensus there was to delete the category (even though the talk page of the article reads "Category:Children's books about death now serves to provide attribution for that content in Children's books about death and must not be deleted so long as Children's books about death exists"). I asked the deleting admin (Mike Selinker (talk · contribs)) if the history could be restored somewhere and he restored the content (but not the history, as I don't think he was able to) to Talk:Children's books about death/original. The problem is that it looks like Mike created that content, not Cej10. So, is there anything that can be done to get the history of the deleted category out so we can show proper attribution through the {{copied}} template? Or do we just have to say 'bad luck' for this one? P.S. – I haven't notified any of the editors I've mentioned as this isn't really about any of their actions, but I will if someone thinks I should. Jenks24 (talk) 04:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Category pages cannot be moved. Since Cej10 is the only author of the original text, Good Olfactory's edit summary ("moving this text from Category:Children's books about death; sole author is User:Cej10. If you want to notify the creator, contact User:Cej10, not me") is sufficient to provide attribution. The {{copied}} was not necessary in this case, and Talk:Children's books about death/original should probably be simply deleted as unnecessary. T. Canens (talk) 04:20, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, excellent. On re-reading Misplaced Pages:Copying within Misplaced Pages I see that it does say a linked edit summary is the minimum and I guess in this case that will have to do. I agree Talk:Children's books about death/original should be deleted. Thanks for your help, Jenks24 (talk) 04:24, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

This is actually the List of authors method. Since the list is short (only one author), it fits in an edit summary. Flatscan (talk) 05:13, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Stefanomione

On 5 March 2012 Stefanomione (talk · contribs) was "banned from using any gadgets or other automated tools (hotcat in particular) to modify categories" and was notified about this, but since than he has used HotCat at least five times since than (, , , & ), and I think he uses HotCat continuously, but hides this by avoiding auto saving. Armbrust, B.Ed. _{about my edits?} 21:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

• I for one didn't realize it was voluntary. I misunderstood the last noticeboard decision and thought that we were taking that capacity away, somehow. I've continued to follow his work was surprised to see how prolific he's remained in category creation; this helps to explain it, I guess. There were some problematic categories created since -- well, whatever in retrospect that discussion was, now -- in that he continued to create Terminology by author subcats despite a clear indication that they were judged problematic, and were actively being deleted. They are nominated here. What that should mean, coupled with the fact that he's ignored or -- I guess, like me -- failed to completely understand that "ruling," well, I leave to the community to decide. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:10, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
  • The problem is that HotCat is a Gadget, and thus nobody knows if a user has enabled it, until they use it. This could be avoided, if a Gadget could be disabled for specific users. Is this even possible? Armbrust, B.Ed. _{about my edits?} 23:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. At least the hotcat usages look to me like a clear violation of the conditions. I don't know if the suspicion about Twinkle is correct—Stefanomione could comment on that. I think that the previous discussion's conclusion offered a fairly generous "second chance" to the user. I'd like to hear from Stefanomione before saying anything definitive about my opinion, but it doesn't look good at this stage. Good Ol’factory 22:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
  • The part with Twinkle was an error on my part now corrected. Armbrust, B.Ed. _{about my edits?} 22:40, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Armbrust's Misplaced Pages:HC#Avoid_auto_saving suspicion seems to me to be a rather serious accusation. I wasn't even aware of this functionality until now. Trying to cover one's tracks in this way would require an awareness that he was violating the terms of the previous AN. Personally, I'm inclined to think he wasn't acting duplicitously, so I don't think he was covering tracks -- nor can we ever prove it, as I understand. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:53, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Yesterday 20 March 2012, between 19.54 and 19.57, I was so concentrated in creating/sorting two new categories (Category:Works about Marie Antoinette and Category:Films about Marie Antoinette) that the automatism (31.000 edits) in my hands took over: I made 3 edits inadvertently using HotCat. I wasn't aware of that until this message on Noticeboard. Indeed, I don't know how how to disable this tool (is this possible anyway ?). There is some convincing evidence I didn't use this tool for my last 900 edits: (1) making category-edits in the classical way, I take the opportunity to put categories in a new order (sorting) AND (2) I wrote 900 edit summaries (two things you can't do with HotCat) AND (3) (as the time registrations clearly show) since the HotCat-ban, I need 25-30 seconds for 1 category-edit (before 5-8 seconds). There should be no doubt I have the clear intention to respect the HotCat-ban until it is lifted. Stefanomione (talk) 07:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
  • If you want to disable HotCat, than go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets, remove the thicker before "HotCat, easily add / remove / change a category on a page, with name suggestion" and than click on "Save". Regards, Armbrust, B.Ed. _{about my edits?} 11:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Done ! Of course, I should have known/done this before. Stefanomione (talk) 12:13, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

2012 Ozar Hatorah Toulouse shooting

Hi,

I don't know if this is an administrator task or not, but it looks like there is consensus to merge two articles:

• 2012_Midi-Pyrénées_shootings and 2012_Ozar_Hatorah_Toulouse_shooting

see discussion here Talk:2012_Ozar_Hatorah_Toulouse_shooting

The merge is holding up consensus to post to ITN as well. Misplaced Pages:In_the_news/Candidates#2012_Toulouse_shooting_.2F_2012_Midi-Pyr.C3.A9n.C3.A9es_shootings

Cold someone please take a look? Sorry if I'm wasting anyones time. Thanks,

Legitimate IP user. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 02:11, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Motion: To rename Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley

Per a motion at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment:

The case Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley is renamed to Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cold fusion 2. Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cold fusion is created as a redirect to Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion, and Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion 2 is created as a redirect to Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cold fusion 2. For the purposes of procedure, the index of topics with an active discretionary sanctions provision will be updated with the new title, but previous references to the Abd-William M. Connolley decision do not require to be updated. The rename of the Abd-William M. Connolley case to Cold fusion 2 is only for clarity in reference, and does not invalidate any previous action or pending sanctions taken under the provisions of this case.

For the Arbitration Committee, Mlpearc (powwow) 02:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Discuss this

Motion: To rename Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren

Per a motion at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment:

The case Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren is renamed to Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe. For the new title of Eastern Europe, WP:ARBEURO and WP:ARBEE are created as shortcuts. For the purposes of procedure, the index of topics with an active discretionary sanctions provision will be updated with the new title, but previous references to the Digwuren decision do not require to be updated. The rename of the Digwuren case to Eastern Europe is only for clarity in reference, and does not invalidate any previous action or pending sanctions taken under the provisions of this case.

For the Arbitration Committee, --Guerillero | My Talk 03:03, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Discuss this

RPP backlog

It seems that the admins at WP:RPP have skipped quite a few.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

POTD urgent

Hi. I have just in the past few seconds created Template:POTD/2012-03-22. I hope there isn't a rule against using Flickr images, or images that have been previously featured on Wikimedia Commons. I created this only because the Main Page was destructed by the absence of today's picture. Please point me to a more suitable discussion if necessary. In any case, feel free to shrink the blurb as needed, and create a protected version of the page. Why was this backlogged initially? I chose this from Page 26, and the previous one was 25, yet the real reason was because this was a weather image. The other one I could have chosen was this, but identifying the city north of Bangkok was becoming too tedious and stressful. Please comment on the suitability of this image, and I will notify the editors involved that this image has been tentatively scheduled for 1 hour 42 minutes ago. Please talk to me about the suitability, procedure and explanation for backlog. Thanks. ~AH1  01:42, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Edwin Ubiles

Hi, this article was deleted in 2010. The reason was that he was not a notable basketball player at the time. I believe that he is now that he plays professionally in the NBA. It would be great if someone can restore it, so I can develop it. Thanks.—Chris!_c/t 02:51, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure it's the same guy? The AfD nom wrote he was a "College american football player". If they are the same player, though, I agree with undeletion. Jenks24 (talk) 03:04, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

It's the same guy - he must have said "football" when he meant "basketball". Undelete. Doc talk 03:32, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks.—Chris!_c/t 04:13, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jim Hawkins (radio presenter)

Would it be appropriate for a WP:SNOW close of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jim Hawkins (radio presenter). I've been involved in the discussion and am therefore "involved", but I'd like an independent admin to have a look at the discussion and maybe put this to bed, or give reasons why the discussion should continue to run. Mjroots (talk) 06:28, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

A little extra exposure here for a few will help but after that unless things change, I wouldn't see why it couldn't be closed early. I wouldn't object if somebody closed it now, but I won't personally do it. - Rjd0060 (talk) 06:39, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd object; there's an important principle here. Malleus Fatuorum 07:09, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

The 'important principle' being your monstrous ego, I presume? Given that your only contributions to the AfD have been soapboxing and bluster (no actual comments on the notability or otherwise of the subject), I see no evidence of anything remotely 'important' at all... AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:15, 22 March 2012 (UTC) Struck as inappropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:49, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

"reply to fatuous malodourum...". Nice. That you are unable to see is your problem, not mine. You might like to try and get someone to keep an eye on your mouth though. Malleus Fatuorum 07:29, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

People who stand on soapboxes should expect to get heckled. Now explain what this 'important principle' is. You haven't so far... AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:34, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

As I've said on MF's talk page - I see notability as a black/white issue. Others see it in varying shades of grey. I accept that consensus is against me in this particular case and therefore bow to such consensus. Iff the AfD discussion is closed as delete, the title can be salted, which should then be an end to the matter. If any editor has issues with another editor's conduct, there are appropriate venues to raise such issues. So far, no issue has been raised by those complaining at the AfD discussion. Mjroots (talk) 07:41, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

This isn't about shades of grey, it's about buckling to the demands of the subject of a BLP. If Hawkins didn't want to be notable then he shouldn't have become a BBC radio presenter. If PoTW has been a problem for him, then deal with PoTW. Malleus Fatuorum 07:48, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Andy: knock that crap off right now. Malleus is entitled to vote as he likes in an AfD without being called names. 28bytes (talk) 07:54, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes he is. Except that it isn't a vote (and this isn't the AfD). AfDs are supposed to be about the suitability of the article as Misplaced Pages content, not about 'important principles' that we have to take into consideration without knowing what they are. MF seems to be suggesting that the mere fact that the subject of a BLP objects to an article is a good enough reason to keep it. Or if he isn't, then what is he arguing? AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:05, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Really? That's not been my experience so far. Malleus Fatuorum 07:58, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

• No, no, and again no. BLP is not an excuse for circumventing all Misplaced Pages process, or the exception that swallows the rule that we are building an encyclopedia. By the general principles of Misplaced Pages the article should be there and its subject has no say on that - a media personality does not get to promote himself to be famous on the one hand, and on the other censor his own coverage here for whatever his idiosyncratic purposes. However, the majority of the community so far supports the proposition that this article should not be there given the circumstances, and by that standard - WP:CONSENSUS - we will more likely than not delete it. We'll see, most people have not yet weighed in. It is a potential consensus deletion, not a BLP violation, and crying BLP every time a human being is involved in the discussion isn't any way to run a community project. The article has existed for years over the unexplained murky protests of its subject. He can wait another few days. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:51, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

The AfD must run its course and I've expressed my opinion on the article there. But if it should stay, I will open a discussion here to impose a topic ban from the article for Pigsonthewing who has, in my opinion, been a major (and unnecessary) cause of the dispute, as ecidenced on the article talk page. Kim Dent-Brown 08:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Couldn't the topic ban go straight under WP:BLPSE? I'm rather surprised that no one invoked it earlier. T. Canens (talk) 10:03, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I've warned Pigsonthewing - as I read WP:BLSE a user must be warned and disregard the final warning before a ban can be applied. As far as I can see he has not yet had a warning that WP:BLSE could be invoked. Kim Dent-Brown 10:24, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

He only needs to be warned about BLP - and he has plenty of warning judging from the talk page discussion which repeatedly referenced the policy. There's no need for a specific warning that he can be sanctioned under BLPSE. T. Canens (talk) 11:06, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

He hasn't tried to re-add the material since 2nd March, as far as I can see; a ban three weeks later would be stretching a point, IMO. If other admins agree he's fair game for a topic ban, go ahead. Kim Dent-Brown 11:10, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Considering this? I'm seriously tempted to just topic ban him now. T. Canens (talk) 11:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

With no advance warning that his persistence had been judged by others to have crossed the boundary, it would be unusual to impose a topic ban retrospectively; it might be an idea to ask Pigsonthewing to seriously consider taking this option as a gesture of good faith. Now there has been a warning, and it has been explained, further transgressions would be worth discussing here for possible action though I consider such problems out of character. Pigsonthewing is a very long term valued contributor and should be able to take the hint or explain his point of view while sticking carefully to BLP and behaving in a collegiate fashion. --Fæ (talk) 11:24, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Some eyes on the AFD would be handy; there are a growing number of comments attacking the subject (which of course is inappropriate, and hardly helping the situation) --Errant 10:46, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

What PoTW is doing is more or less the definition of tendentious editing. Even if WP:TE is only an essay, it's used almost like policy at times and editors have been sanctioned for in the past. Blackmane (talk) 11:21, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm surprised not to have been notified that I'm being discussed here; contrary to clear policy. I haven't added Hawkins DoB - which he himself publicises regularly, from his high profile, public Twitter account - to the article since circa March 2010. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:28, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

You were notified 5 minutes before posting this, Pigs. You added reference to his exact date of birth to the article talk page as late as March 2nd this year. WP:DOB does not specify that it refers to article space only; the whole of WP is available for anyone to view. Kim Dent-Brown 11:32, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

PotW's most recent reaction is completely intransigent (//en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Pigsonthewing&diff=483349066&oldid=483347638]). He refuses to leave the topic alone. Given the consensus here that his activities in this topic area have been disruptive and have been a major factor in souring the relationship between the project and one of its BLP subjects, I have blocked him until he agrees to stay away from the topic. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:55, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

• In view of the last many 'keep' views on the afd, a snow 'keep' might be in order. I don't believe the initial 'deletes' were a random sample (unlike the 'keeps', coming in from random views of this page and elsewhere). The current block of Andy Mabbett is one of the most ridiculous I have ever seen. Oculi (talk) 12:47, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

• On the AfD I have suggested adding a note on the talk page highlighting that his exact date of birth shouldn't be included in the article. As this might also be useful to other pages, I've created a mock-up of a possible Template:DoB year only at User:Thryduulf/DoB year only. As my template coding skills are basic and rusty, please feel free to improve it if you think it has merit. Thryduulf (talk) 13:58, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

For interest, this is a recent contribution by Jimbo on his talk page, in response to an editor posting about the AfD. Kim Dent-Brown 16:08, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Topic ban

I'm not sure an immediate block was warranted - though Andy showed no remorse and an intention to pursue the issue. I suggest we simply topic ban Andy now, and unblock him so he can continue on other work. Per WP:AEBLOCK we need a community discussion to achieve this.

DOB

In general WP:DOB gives the article subject an avenue to request we don't publish their full D.O.B. We almost always honour this in situations where the subject is not very notable - such as this.

Pursuing the issue

Andy claims he has not added the D.O.B to the article since 2010. Which is true; but in 2011 and 2012 he made a point of raising the issue around the guys birthday - a long term case of WP:STICK.

Subject dislikes Misplaced Pages

It is clear the subject doesn't like Misplaced Pages, and disapproves of this article. Which is fine, his opinion. One of the criticisms being raised is that he is using our policies to try and control the article - that could well be true. But I think we still should honour the DOB request - refusing to do so on the grounds he is using it as a form of control probably undermines our position.

I'm concerned that the pursuit of listing the DOB is in part a reaction to the perceived effort to control the article (Andy has said almost as much). I don't see any benefit in continuing that pursuit - it will simply upset the subject further, and lead to Andy getting into more trouble. In my experience of OTRS correspondents that are upset with Misplaced Pages, demanding control or deletion of the article, it is usually fixed by simply not pursuing the little matters (such as D.O.B). Chances are we will never here of this again.

So I propose Andy be unblocked and topic banned under WP:BLPSE from Jim Hawkins (radio presenter). --Errant 13:29, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

• I'd obviously agree with this solution. As far as I'm concerned, anybody is of course free to unblock him as soon as some alternative assurance of him staying away from the topic is reached, be it voluntary or involuntary. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:37, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

• WP:AEBLOCK doesn't come into it. That was 2007 and to do with infoboxes - nothing to do with radio presenters or BLP. WP:STICK - it's more like WP:FEATHER, barely perceptible annually. Oculi (talk) 13:52, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I'd support an unblock with a topic ban from the Jim Hawkins (radio presenter) article and from discussing the subject of that article in all namespaces. I don't see any evidence that something softer is likely to work. Thryduulf (talk) 13:54, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I'd support an immediate unblock with a stern warning to the blocker to heed WP:INVOLVED. Edits like this one are definitely a situation of "in disputes they have been a party to or have strong feelings about". Nyttend (talk) 14:36, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

The removal of some blatantly BLP-violating material does not make FPaS involved. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:50, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Obviously this was in full accordance with WP:INVOLVED, "interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role". Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:54, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support unblock and topic ban, agree with Nyttend that this was not a good case for Fut.Perf. to have intervened in. The sooner we confirm the topic ban (shall we say 12 months, to get us past the subject's next birthday?) the sooner the block can be lifted. Kim Dent-Brown 14:52, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support topic ban, and make it indefinite. Have there ever been similar problems in other BLPs, or is this specific to Mr Hawkins? Because if other BLPs are affected, I would argue for a topic ban covering all biographies.
• By the way, one comment above which seems just ... odd is this one: "One of the criticisms being raised is that he is using our policies to try and control the article - that could well be true." What the ...? This seems to be saying that editors want the right to break policy, and the right to paint biography subjects as evil-doers if they insist editors follow it, as in this case with WP:BLPPRIVACY, which states quite clearly that BLP subjects have the right not to have their date of birth in the article. Truly bizarre. JN466 15:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
  • re "Have there ever been similar problems in other BLPs". None recently as far as I can see from his contributions and talk page, and he does seem to do some good work (primarily copyediting) on BLPs so I think a topic ban that broad would be excessive as it currently stands. Obviously we should make it explicitly clear that if the problem shifts to other articles then the topic ban will be broadened and/or replaced with harder sanctions. The only area of concern I'd have predicted from his recent talk page threads would be related not to BLPs but to templates, particularly when discussing merging them, however my opinion here may be coloured by my interaction with him on a current TfD. Thryduulf (talk) 15:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• Strange block - for "not agreeing with cop". As far as I can tell, the block was over refusing to agree to a self-imposed topic ban or that a 3-week-old talk page comment was inappropriate. BLPSE doesn't apply here, and an admin reaching for that hammer to try to win an argument against a nonadmin is wrong. There's a reasonable case to be made for some kind of quasi-interaction ban between the article subject and the editor, both of whom seem to be badmouthing and accusing each other on the article talk page. If that's what it takes to prevent disruption and keep the project running smoothly, so be it. On the other hand, the article subject has been less than helpful here as well. He will presumably go away if his article is deleted, but in the off chance it is not, we'll likely have to deal with his ongoing issues as well. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:21, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• What about Beeblebrox? The article's entire talk page is presently a BLP violation. The subject opted out of having their date of birth in the article years ago, and yet the talk page is filled with three weeks' worth of speculation over his birth date, based on stalking his tweets. Beeblebrox is calling the subject "deliberately obstructive" on the talk page for exercising his right under policy to have his date of birth excluded, and says his objections are "not relevant". Again, all Hawkins has done is exercise his rights under WP:BLPPRIVACY. I'll drop Beeblebrox a line and ask him to give an account of himself here. JN466 17:04, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not clear on what it is you want from me here. I don't believe I have done or said anything that can't be explained by simply reading all of my remarks on that page so I have no further comment or "accounting" to make at this time. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:29, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Would you mind striking "deliberately obstructive" and "not relevant" on the Hawkins talk page? --JN466 17:59, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support and better make sure that PotW understands that the topic ban extends to the talk page and other possibly related articles.VolunteerMarek 21:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support indefinite topic ban. As always, indefinite does not have to mean forever. For now it is best if Andy doesn't edit this article or its talk page. --John (talk) 22:47, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support indefinite topic ban. All this attention to a minor BLP page is absurd—raising the issue periodically, even if only on the talk page, is either a WP:POINT violation, or some kind of harassment of the subject. Johnuniq (talk) 00:47, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I trust that Andy will not mention the unspeakable again and his other contributions to the article are benefitial. Agathoclea (talk) 09:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
• Ban Indef - Not just topic. This editor has a massive block log and has already been to Arbcom not once but twice, the latter resulting in a 1-year timeout. & years and counting, the message has apparently not sunk in. Tarc (talk) 13:19, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Examining Pigsonthewing's block log shows the recent (controversial) block by Future Perfect at Sunrise that lasted less that 6 hours, a block in 2009 that was a mistake and blocks before that all in September 2008 and one in 2007. Calling this a massive block log is over-egging it and when the only unrelated blocks date from over 3 years ago as evidence for a topic ban now seems weak. --Fæ (talk) 13:41, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Excuse-making is your forté, after all. I stand by my assessment that this is a problematic user who simply does not "get it(tm)". Tarc (talk) 15:14, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Per policy, "as a matter of … effective discourse, comments should not be personalized. That is, they should be directed at content and actions rather than people." Disparaging an editor or casting aspersions is a personal attack, regardless of the manner in which it is done. The usual exception to this principle is reasonably expressed concerns raised within a legitimate dispute resolution process.

— English Misplaced Pages Arbitration Committee

Nobody Ent 15:24, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Response

A topic ban - like the earlier indefinite block, now rescinded - would be wholly unneccessary overkill. I have not edited the article since an uncontested and non-controversial URL fix last October; I have not added the DOB to the article since another editor removed it two years ago. I posted evidence of the subject's self-publicity of their birthday and age (merely reporting what the subject had said elsewhere) three weeks ago, in order to enable discussion of whether or not it should be in the article. Like similar evidence the year previously, this was discussed and its inclusion disputed, but no editors considered the evidence worthy of removal until it was (routinely, and not for a year, in the case of the March 2011 edits) archived. There were no claims that I breached BLP by doing so, and though the matter was discussed on ANI (after I raised another of the subject's calls to vandalise Misplaced Pages), no admonishments resulted from that. I have already indicated that I refrain from making contentious edits to the article, discussing them first, and as it is the community's wish, I am prepared to undertake not to mention the actual DoB at all. My other, undisputed, edits to the article have helped to improve the encyclopedia. There have been accusations of harassment made against me, with no supporting evidence, save that I added the above evidence, and no mention has been made of the subject's on- and off-wiki harassment of me (some of which made from IP addresses presumed to be him), to which I have refrained from responding. As for the observation that I have "shown no remorse", which Misplaced Pages policy requires that ? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

• Andy, if you bite the bullet and extend your response to make an unambiguous commitment to voluntarily stop all contributions to the Jim Hawkins article or talk pages and avoid posting or linking elsewhere on Misplaced Pages to specific details about Jim Hawkins which might be interpreted by others as failing to meet DOB (for, say, a period of 12 months) then I would oppose a formal topic ban. This would leave you free to discuss the matter in principle elsewhere and if there are unsupported allegations of harassment being made about you on the discussion pages related to the article (such as the current AfD) then I suggest you commit to working with friendly admins who can take action, present a complaint on your behalf, or alternatively you can raise any serious demonstrably false allegation for review on AN/I. I suspect if you take this step then the above proposal for formal action would be seen by many, and hopefully most, as unnecessary. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
• You don't seem to understand that, once the subject has made their wishes clear on the matter of the date of birth, any further discussion of this anywhere on Misplaced Pages is a violation of BLP policy as written, at least as long as there is no new OTRS communication from the subject rescinding his earlier one. As the matter is put quite clearly in BLP policy, I can only assume that your not understanding was wilful, and your insistence on the matter against all reason is in my view ample reason for a topic ban covering a small 250-word biography. There are over 3 million other articles to work on. --JN466 14:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Actions taken on the article

• Jim Hawkins (radio presenter)‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

As an administrator who was previously unaware of this article, I have taken the initiative to add an article talk page OTRS notice referencing the email complaint in 2009 which supports the application of WP:DOB, I have deleted the article talk page history due to multiple mentions of Hawkins' birth date and associated links and deleted sections in the talk page archives that discussed and speculated as to birth dates. To my mind, these actions are supported by WP:BLP and so do not require advance consensus to implement.

I propose that the article history is deleted (so that only administrators could review it) unless someone has a better suggestion on how to remove the complex history of inclusions of birth date in the article, though this is a fairly unusual act, verging on censorship, that I would like a consensus here before taking such an action. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 23:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Blanking the talkpage was appropriate, but I think deleting the history would be an overreaction. It's his date of birth, not photos of him in his undies. It's not a BLP violation and he can't possibly sue. FormerIP (talk) 00:01, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

It's not a question of whether someone can sue, it's a question of doing the right thing (ethics). Misplaced Pages is a major resource on the Internet and should not be used to irritate minor BLP subjects with no clear encyclopedic benefit (of course significant politicians and the like will have properly sourced and due material in their articles, even if unwelcome). Johnuniq (talk) 00:51, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the sentiment, but we would normally only delete an articles history for extremely good and obvious reasons. Hawkins' date of birth isn't sensitive and it's available elsewhere. I think we ought to adopt a less panicky attitude in the face of complaints. FormerIP (talk) 01:26, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Here's my take on this, in my administrative capacity. Blanking everything related to his birth date is all right (though I agree with FormerIP that we seriously need to change our attitude towards these requests; sometimes we just have to tell people tough shit), but deleting the number of revisions that contain his birth date on the article and talkpage seems like overkill. Misplaced Pages cannot be responsible for stuffing the genie of freely revealed information back into the lamp by request, because as is mentioned above his birth date is rather easily found elsewhere on the web. There's nothing there that isn't readily accessible without a quick Google search, so there's no major privacy concerns. Just leave it be, because eventually (hopefully decades from now, but still) the subject will die, there will no longer be a BLP concern, and we'll end up putting his birth date into the article anyways. Just because it's a BLP issue doesn't mean we need to scream about it at the top of our lungs and run around like chickens with our heads cut off. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:53, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The fact that editors here have no hesitation to tell the subject of an article we write about them "tough shit" if they don't like it, is one of the main reasons the subject has so much hostility towards Misplaced Pages and its editors. 28bytes (talk) 02:16, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

People will have all sorts of reasons to not like us no matter what we do. Instead of trying to be too many things at once, we should stick with our core mission of being an encyclopedia; that inherently means we're going to tread on people's toes. And I have had to tell a family member IRL that I can't remove accurate, sourced information about the owner of the company she works for, so this isn't an Internet tough guy act; sometimes good feelings and good encyclopedia writing are incompatible, and when that happens we should default to the encyclopedia side, because we're an encyclopedia and not a feel-good blog. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:27, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not making a keep-vs-delete argument here (I did that in the AfD). I'm making an appeal to treat our article subjects with more respect. 28bytes (talk) 02:32, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Reality check sunshine, most of these minor BLPs are not encyclopaedic they are the dreggs from gossip columns. John lilburne (talk) 09:50, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I can assure you I'm quite with reality; don't patronize me. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 10:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmmmm in need of a recalibration. If this site wasn't mostly dedicated to gossip the bigger story would be in there somewhere. John lilburne (talk) 12:46, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

That's why, when it comes to content, I typically stick to this article and a few related ones. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:21, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

It would have been much better if an uninvolved administrator had done this. By uninvolved, I mean one who hadn't (1) voted "keep", and (2) repeatedly posted to the AfD arguing their position and SPA-tagging a "delete" voter. As it stands it looks uncomfortably like an attempt to derail the AfD. 28bytes (talk) 02:16, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Although I think that blanking the talkpage was appropriate, I have to say that blanking the talkpage, deleting its history and then making this comment in the deletion discussion was an abuse of tools. FormerIP (talk) 02:44, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The archive pages have not been revdel'd or re-created so all the information is still, at this point, visible in the history of those sub-pages. My preference would be to keep that history available for those pages. The end result being that transient dubious posts that (for any reason, including claimed harassment) have been removed from the main talk page will not visible but whatever ended up getting archived will remain. --Fæ (talk) 11:25, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Although there may have been extreme circumstances in this particular case, I don't interpret WP:BLP to mean that editors cannot discuss a BLP subject's date of birth on an article talk page. There are extensive discussions of the birth date of actor Juliet Landau on the article's talk page - should that page be blanked and the history deleted? I support a topic ban (and I see no great need to keep the article if the subject objects to it), but deleting the talk page history seems like an over-reaction that is not grounded in policy. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:57, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Once the BLP subject has made it clear that they do not want their birth date in WP (which is the case here), this should be honoured, incl. on the talk page. Fæ's deletion was thus fully justified. (I don't agree with Fæ that this means the article should now be kept, as we have to judge it on the past seven years, rather than one Friday, but the deletion was a good-faith action in response to a concern I raised on Jimbo's talk.) JN466 13:11, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I would also have preferred deletion decisions to be taken by an uninvolved admin. I archived the talk page yesterday to make the DOB discussions less visible, but I didn't delete the history, mostly because I had commented in the AfD, and in part because deletion prevents editors from seeing how the subject has been treated (e.g. editors repeatedly deleting the subject's comments, which means not all input was archived, so the history of the page is not, in fact, available in the archives). Some of the subject's comments were personal attacks, so it was fair enough to remove them, but others just showed how frustrated he was. Fae, you referenced OTRS. Did the subject request deletion of the page history? SlimVirgin 16:01, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

If there is a consensus for me to withdraw I would be perfectly happy to do so, and for any other admin to reverse my actions and do things differently. In fact, based on the feedback here so far, I have no intention of taking further admin actions myself on this article; please remember the first time I was aware of this article was yesterday, though I accept I was unwise to touch the AfD. My intention was not to make the actions themselves about me, but in good faith fully to ensure the policy of DOB was enforced (even after such a long period since the original complaints).

As for VRTS ticket # 2009090910048758 it includes 6 verifiable emails from Jim Hawkins in September 2009. He initially asked for the article to be deleted but later was prepared to accept a compromise if the article was protected once it was in a demonstrably accurate state. He specifically objected to his birth date being included as an "invasion of privacy". Though emails to OTRS are confidential, it is no secret this email complaint exists and as an OTRS volunteer I have passed on the bare bones needed to support the actions requested. If there are requests by the community for more detail, I (or another OTRS volunteer) would be happy to consider them, but any response may require permission from Jim Hawkins to reveal much more from the original correspondence. A key point in the emails was privacy invasion, to protect his interest of privacy, I interpret that to include the same material appearing for the public to read or reference on the talk pages, their history and the history of the article, though I am unsure if Jim Hawkins technically appreciates exactly how these work or how to use them to see the material he considers private. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 16:27, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, Fae. The problem is that there are two issues currently being decided: (1) whether to delete the article, and one of the issues informing that decision is how poorly the subject has been treated. The evidence of that treatment resides in the talk-page history you deleted. And (2) whether to topic-ban Pigsonthewing, and again the evidence of whether he behaved inappropriately lies, in part, in the deleted talk-page history. As you voted to keep the article and (I believe) not topic-ban Pigsonthewing, you can see the conflict, though I accept you were acting in good faith.

In addition, the DOB material is still in the archives for anyone who knows where to look, so really, the only people protected by deletion of the talk-page history are the Wikipedians who were clashing with the subject. For that reason, I think you ought to undelete the history, wait for the AfD and topic-ban discussions to close, then ask the admin who closes the AfD to consider deletion of the talk-page history at that point. SlimVirgin 17:02, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Seems entirely logical to me, I'll undo my changes to the main article talk page as per your suggestion. As the page history has been around for years, I can't see a strong rationale for excessive risk to the subject for the short time the AFD is running. I will leave an additional note on the talk page to this effect. --Fæ (talk) 17:12, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks. It will only be for a few days, and it means the various issues won't get mixed up. Thanks again. SlimVirgin 17:24, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Looking ahead

Accepting that the AfD debate will run for at least seven days, I've been thinking about what should happen when the debate closes. My thoughts are that one of two things should happen.

1. If closed as delete; salt the article.
2. If closed as no consensus / keep; fully protect the article. Reasons being the objection of the subject to the very existence of the article and the relative ease there is to overcome any protection offered by semi-protection. Additionally, an edit note should be placed on the article's talk page forbidding any discussion of his d.o.b. until such time that the article no longer covers a BLP.

Thoughts? Mjroots (talk) 18:13, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

• The talk page note you suggest is already in place. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 18:17, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Not quite, there's an OTRS note requesting that discussion is restricted to year on birth only. I had something much stronger in mind. Try editing the RMS Titanic article and see what happens - like that, but much stronger wording. Anyone who dares to raise the issue having been expressly told not to should face the prospect of an immediate block. Mjroots (talk) 18:24, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
    • The wording is probably overly nice, though DOB carries its own weight. I agree with a firmer notice when the AFD finishes (if a keep conclusion) so that everyone realizes that BLP will be fully enforced. With regard to indefinite full protection, this is unusual, I suggest that a notice advise full protection to be used as needed, in response to any privacy related issue in preference to semi-protection, due to the past sensitivity of the article, no more than a week at a time. Compare to Barack Obama which is only semi-protected despite astonishingly high traffic and sensitivity. --Fæ (talk) 18:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
      • Indefinite full protection is unusual, but I think would be justified here. JH claims that there are inaccuracies in the article, but refuses to identify them. AFAIK, all info is reliably sourced, and WP:V beats the WP:TRUTH every time. An indefinite full protection would prevent any vandalism at all. It may even force JH to tell us what is wrong with the article and where his assertions of any inaccuracies can be verified. Being a high profile BLP, Barack Obama probably has many sets of eyes on it, which is not the case here. Mjroots (talk) 18:44, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

V does not beat truth every time, especially not when it comes to BLPs, and the policy doesn't say that. It says "the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth," which simply means that material has to be sourced before we add it. It does not mean that inappropriate material must be added just because there is a source for it. A reliable source is a necessary but not sufficient condition for inclusion.

Mj, with respect, I think you ought to step back from involvement in this. You suggested at one point that we use the Freedom of Information Act to obtain the subject's DOB. I suspect that was the kind of comment that made him feel uncomfortable about us hosting an article. SlimVirgin 19:29, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think full protection would be proportionate to the problem. The current discussions are likely to lead to a situation where inappropriate editing of the article stops and enough editors will have the page on their watchlist to deal with it if it doesn't. This isn't a situation where there is any need to impose martial law. FormerIP (talk) 19:47, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

SV, I don't intend to do any major editing to the article, although I am prepared to step in and revert vandalism etc if necessary. To put into context my comment made in 2010, at the time JH was advocating vandalism of the article by means of his Twitter account (as far as I remember). I did complain to the BBC about this but they declined to take any action. Following consensus being formed that we would not include his d.o.b., I've not supported any proposal to add it. At that time, such consensus had not been formed, as this was part of the debate about whether or not his posting his d.o.b. on Twitter was useable as a source. With hindsight, I accept that I shouldn't have made the suggestion. Mjroots (talk) 20:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The situation here is that both sides saw their actions are reasonable, but each had an entirely different perspective. You wanted to include material that you saw as uncontentious and you were looking for a source. You wanted to reach out to him, so you telephoned him. You wanted him not to advocate vandalizing Misplaced Pages, so you contacted the BBC.

But from his perspective, this is: anonymous people have created the number one Google hit for his name without his consent. Some of them revert or ignore his interventions on the talk page, and tell him the contents are not up to him. They suggest hunting down his official papers to nail down certain details. They telephone him, and they contact his employer. The people nominally in charge of the publication won't help him. This makes him very nervous, so he feels he has to constantly check the entry to make sure it hasn't deteriorated. Over the years, this has upset him a great deal.

Because this has been such a fundamental miscommunication, I think everyone involved in that article, directly or otherwise, ought to step back (i.e. not edit the article or the talk page, and not take any admin action), so the subject sees that entirely unconnected people are looking at it now. SlimVirgin 20:32, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Photo on TFA

I've just swapped the image in the blurb for Today's Featured Article because of copyright concerns about the previous one. Does the file, File:Goose Green - Altrincham, Cheshire - geograph.org.uk - 1608511.jpg, need to be protected here or on commons? Nev1 (talk) 23:49, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

You either need to get a Commons admin to protect it on Commons, or upload it locally and protect it here. If Betacommand were around, he'd trout you. I've never uploaded a file in my life, so I can't do the latter; I'll go to Commons and try to find an admin to do the former. I'm temporarily removing the file from the Main Page; as soon as one of these two things happens, it can be re-added. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:57, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, thanks for the help Floquenbeam. Nev1 (talk) 01:09, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I restored it and uploaded a local version. What's the template that we use to indicate that a file has been temporarily uploaded for Main Page use? Nyttend (talk) 01:16, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

{{Pp-main-page}}? Black Kite (talk) 01:26, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Not quite; that appears to be for files that were already on here before they were being prepared for the Main Page. I just found the template I wanted: {{Uploaded from Commons}}. Nyttend (talk) 01:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah yes. It will, of course, need to be protected anyway. Black Kite (talk) 01:39, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Done as soon as I uploaded it. Nyttend (talk) 01:55, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

• I just learned something new. For your future peace of mind, it seems things have changed somewhat and I never got the memo. Commons now has a page maintained by KrinkleBot that automatically protects files on commons that are used on our main page. So the page was cascade-protected on commons at 0:07 today. That means it was unprotected for 7 minutes (which is still not good), but not more than an hour, as I had thought up until now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:06, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Administrative backlog