Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:43, 21 April 2013

• 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 26 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 24 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 93 days ago on 7 October 2024) Tough one, died down, will expire tomorrow. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

(Initiated 63 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 54 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 47 days ago on 22 November 2024) Legobot has removed the RFC notice. Can we please get an interdependent close. TarnishedPath 23:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RFC_Science-Based_Medicine

(Initiated 32 days ago on 7 December 2024) slowed for a while Bluethricecreamman (talk) 06:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Deletion discussions

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

(Initiated 20 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 106 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 85 days ago on 16 October 2024) Experienced closer requested. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:57, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

 Closed by editor S Marshall. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.  20:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Winter fuel payment abolition backlash#Merge proposal

(Initiated 72 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 63 days ago on 7 November 2024) Looking for uninvolved close in CTOP please, only a few !votes in past month. I realise this doesn't require closing, but it is preferred in such case due to controversial nature of topic. CNC (talk) 10:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Talk:Shiv Sena#Merge proposal

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

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

Heads up

The Texas explosion has a fledgling article already - West Fertilizer Plant explosion - and I expect this will be much like the Boston Marathon bombings article in terms of edit pace. I'm sure it will get lots of attention but extra admin eyes from the start would be useful. Cheers, Stalwart111 04:21, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• Actually, looks like it is doing well without semi-protection, which is a good thing. I will try to peek in from time to time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:45, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Looks like someone added PC1 protection to the page. Maybe I will warm up to it later, but I really don't care for PC1, especially on these busier pages. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 03:13, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Alan Liefting and long blocks

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

• Block log
• User talk:Alan Liefting#April 2013

I'm just going to leave these here, without comment – make up your own mind. Take a look at the first. It's my view that there's something wrong here and it's obvious from that first link. If it's not obvious, maybe I'm wrong, then there's discussion of it at the second link. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:01, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

The situation here is that Alan Liefting has an edit restriction due to long-term complaints about his category-related edits and numerous previous warnings . The restriction is completely objective: "Alan Liefting may not make any category-related edits outside of mainspace until and unless this topic ban is lifted." Since the restriction was established, Alan Liefting has violated it on numerous occasions. As described at , he appealed the restriction twice, and the appeals were not successful. He specifically agreed to follow the restriction as part of one unblock , but then went back to violating it. The reason that the current block is for three months is that shorter block lengths have not been effective. The first blocks were much shorter, but Alan Liefting declined to change his editing despite the community's clear request in the form of an editing restriction. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:10, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Blocks should be done as a preventative measure to prevent harm to the pedia, not to make a point or as punishment which seems to be the case. If Alan was doing something that as a harm, I would agree with a block, sanction or not. Since the edits Alan was doing were improvements and not contentious, there is no need for a block and certainly not one of this length. Additionally, I agree with Andy's assessment that the block log appears that CBM has taken an unhealthy interest in ensuring this user is blocked. Both issues of too long of blocks and edit stalking needs to be addressed IMO. Kumioko (talk) 16:29, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

The relevant question is only whether Alan has violated his edit restriction against making "any category-related edits outside of mainspace". In fact, he has, and the purpose of the block is to prevent him from continuing to do so. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:25, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

As for the fact that CBM has been the sole admin to block Alan for violating his topic ban, that doesn't necessarily mean CBM has been hounding him or acting inappropriately; I can think of at least one instance in which I've regularly monitored the contributions of someone under a topic ban and was apparently the only one doing so. The nature of an absolute ban or restriction on making a certain kind of edit is that it isn't permitted regardless of its merit, the whole point for the restriction being the community does not trust the editor to make that judgment for himself, and the only way to avoid whatever problems it was causing is to make the restriction absolute. This necessarily requires some monitoring, as those who have watchlisted affected articles but are unfamiliar with the editor's history are not going to notice anything amiss. That said, when I was monitoring that restricted user, I did not block him myself but instead in each instance posted a notice to ANI, and another admin then blocked them. So perhaps CBM should do the same thing in the future. Sometimes it's good to step back and let someone else act even if only to avoid your continued involvement raising the appearance of something personal even if done in good faith. postdlf (talk) 17:41, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• Alan's restrictions were imposed by the community. He has appealed them a few times and those appeals have been denied by the community. No exemptions were provided for edits that break the letter of the topic ban but may be helpful anyway, the idea was and is that he is not to make such edits. Therefore the only questions we should be asking are:

• Did Alan violate the letter of his community imposed topic ban?
• Is CBM in violation of WP:INVOLVED?

If the answers arem, respectively, yes and no, there is no problem except Alan's apparent unwillingness or inability to abide by the terms the community has set for him to contribute here. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:59, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I think the "punishment" should fit the crime. The honest to god truth is I don't really care if an editor violates a topic ban as long as the edits being made aren't 1) contentious and 2) are correct. In this case the answer to those quetions are that the edits were not contentious (except the topic ban) and they were correct. I am familiar with the background of the topic ban and I think it had some merit when it was implemented. I also think that Alan has mostly abided by it and has not done the same types of contentious changes he was doing before. The over arching problem I have with these kinds of cases is the utter haphazard way we enforce them. Sometimes we look the other way and sometimes we enforce them, when we feel like it and the admin that takes it for action gets nearly unlimited authority to establish the length of block of their choice. I am not very popular here, I get that and frankly I don't really care anymore. But we cannot simply block every editor that is trying to make changes just because we feel like it. It doesn't really surprise me that the community didn't overturn the sanction. They rarely do. People are quick to vote to implement a sanction but its historically impossible to revoke one. Not that I think for a second it will be taken seriously. I don't really expect for folks to agree with me but that's how I feel. A few things I think should comem out of this discussion. Sanctions should have term limits. Blocks for them should have a limit. CBM is too involved in this case and needs to step aside and let another admin handle it, I think Alan was doing useful edits regardless of the sanction (IAR should probably apply here since several made it very clear to me a couple days ago that sanctions are not exempt from it) and I think I am completely wasting my time by commenting because no one really cares that good edits aren't getting done. We are no longer worried about creating an encyclopedia, we are more worried these days about ensuring that a sanction isn't violated and a policy isn't followed. END OF RANT!Kumioko (talk) 18:46, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

"The honest to god truth is I don't really care if an editor violates a topic ban as long as the edits being made aren't 1) contentious and 2) are correct." Then it's not a topic ban; it's not anything at all but the status quo before the restriction was imposed. postdlf (talk) 19:36, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Its not anything anyway. Its a meaningless determination really. We should all be here to build an encyclopedia. Not to sanction users so that they cannot contribute. A big problem with WP these days is too much time is spenting fighting about shit like this and arguing why some helpful contribution violated a sanction, ban or block rather than looking at the edit itself. If Alan was an admin this would have been swept under the rug long ago. Because he is an editor though its a national case. Admins on this site are allowed unlimited power to block and ban users and quite a few of them use their tools abusively. No one cares about them. But let a user edit an article that's only remotely associated to a topic ban (Russavia), create a category (Alan Leifting) or use excel to edit an article (Rich F) and they are blocks for months. I am becoming more and more convinced that Admins on this site are doing more to destroy it than the vandals they should be protecting it from. That includes CBM with his singluar attention to Alan's edits and a number of other vocal admins on this site. The sooner we disolve the Admin cabal the better! Kumioko (talk) 20:15, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• Note: Alan should be given a means to respond. I suggest that material be included or copied from his talk page, as a restriction to only edit here might not be followed, due to the fact he has violated specific objective restrictions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:27, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

  The last time he had an AN/only unblock, he did violate it once, but self-reverted. I'll leave it to others to decide whether he can be trusted with an ANI/only unblock. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:36, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

  I would prefer to see things copied here, if he wishes to respond more than he already has . Moreover, per the outcome of a previous appeal , he is not permitted to appeal again until the end of this month. The issue here is simply that he declines to follow the edit restriction, it's not an especially complicated situation. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:18, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• It is inappropriate to bring this matter up here, Andy. You've been here long enough to know that the way this board functions is to maximise the dignity and powers of administrators. It is not a place to seek fairness for a content builder. Still, this long punitive block, following the even longer punitive block of Rich F, establishes new precedents in the ease with which administrators can now put down even notable long term productive editors. --Epipelagic (talk) 19:51, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• I agree completely with Epi. This is the Administrators board not the fairness to the user board. Decisions here are frequently not about doing the right thing but protecting the administrator with the vested interests. Kumioko (talk) 20:15, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• I no longer have any idea if either of you are joking or serious. 8-( Maybe you're not being serious here, but there's no shortage of admins who would be. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:59, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• Kumioko's complaint is based on two deeply mistaken ideas, which I think we should explicitly disown:

• that an admin who blocks a user several times thereby becomes "involved" so that further interaction with that user indicates an "unhealthy interest",
• that editing restrictions can be ignored if the result is "useful".

JohnCD (talk) 20:10, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

On the first topic though of CBM not being involved because he has blocked this user multiple times. Its also because he goes out of his way to follow the user around until he finds something to block him for. On the second issue, what I really think is that editing restrictions and topic bans should have a limit. Maybe a year or in some cases shorter just like a block. If you have a topic ban on not creating categories and you stay here long enough you are going to violate it. Accidentally or otherwise. Otherwise we are just setting the user up for failure later on. But it really doesn't matter what I think because I am here to help build an encyclopedia. The only reason I even get involved in these discussions is because I have grown to completely lack faith in many of the admins and feel like someone needs to stand up to them and their abuse. WP used to be a very fun place to edit and a lot of editors I work with were enjoyable to be around. Over the years this place has become more cutthroat and toxic and much less fun due in large part to bully admins that are allowed to do whatever they want, once they get the tools, with no fear that they will ever lose the tools. That needs to change. CBM is involved and he needs to let another administrator step in. Kumioko (talk) 20:23, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

It sounds to me like CBM is doing exactly what he is supposed to do. Just because you disagree that topic bans should exist does not entitle you to denounce CBM for acting in good faith according to the currently existing community consensus and established practices. If you think topic bans shouldn't exist, you need to establish community consensus for that opinion to have weight. Otherwise, you are frankly wasting your breathe. The idea that Misplaced Pages should just be 'fun' without any enforcement of rules seems like a recipe for disaster. Kaldari (talk) 20:49, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

When you refer to topic bans, Kaldari, I assume you are talking about the edit restrictions Alan and Rich F were placed under. These restrictions are just rules made up and imposed by admins. In the case of Alan, and particularly Rich F, these rules were "gotcha traps", set in such a way that over time the editors would stumble into them. That would be fine if there was a culture where admins also threw flexibility, common sense and a pinch of basic decency into the mix. We do get that approach at times, for example it can happen when Dennis Brown is involved. But admins of that calibre are not numerous on Misplaced Pages. Instead, many admins go for rigid rule-based approaches, such as we see here, which presupposes that the rules they made up themselves are sacrosanct. This approach has obvious attractions. Once the rules have been set, admins need do no further work. That can just wait for the targeted editor to err, and then remain in a state of suspended intelligence while they allow their knees to jerk with programmed responses. However restful this approach may be for the involved admins, it is a disaster at building trust with the editor community. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:41, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Any admin can observe Alan's edits and step in. Yet they haven't - Carl gets there first. Every time. I'm not going to poke that with a chi-squared test, but it looks to be statistically most unlikely that it's anything other than an "unhealthy interest".

We don't need this. Alan isn't a serious problem. He doesn't need to be stalked like this. In the spirit of collegial editing, even under a topic ban, he shouldn't be stalked like this. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:57, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• Some admins unfortunately take blocking way too lightly. Gosh. Three months. Does the blocking admin realize just how long that is? ... ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:47, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I do realize how long it is. The first block for violating the topic ban was much shorter: 72 hours. Alan Liefting had the opportunity since then to file several appeals, but they were not successful and the restriction has not been changed. A fair process has been followed. The reason this block is so long is simply that Alan has worked through all the shorter block lengths. At any point he could have begun to follow the restriction, and avoid another, longer block. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:06, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, Carl is obviously keeping an eye on Alan. The community (not admins, the community at large) has placed restrictions on alan. Carl is following the terms of those restrictions, which have no listed exceptions and call for escalating blocks each time Alan is found to be in violation. I agree that in most cases rigid adherence to rules is a bad thing, but Alan's severe WP:IDHT behavior does not make one at all confident that granting exceptions in cases where he clearly violated those terms, which he is perfectly aware of, would be wise. We are way, way beyond AGF here, Alan has been told what the community expects of him, and has, by his actions, sent a clear message that he does not respect the community's will and will violate the topic ban if he wants. Carl blocks him each time because Carl is apparently watching for violations. How are we to blame him for remaining vigilant in doing what the community has said it wants done in this situation? As I said before, the problem here is alan's refusal to abide by what is a very simple and easy to follow restriction. Block lenghts have been escalated each time, per the terms the community imposed. Frankly I would have gone for an indef block by now as it is clear alan has no intention of sticking to the terms of the ban. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:53, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Well I guess I really don't have what it takes to be an admin after all. I still believe in the good old days when blocks were only used to prevent harm to the pedia. Sanction or not, if there is no harm done then we aren't preventing anything and the block is punitive in nature. Bottom line! There is no doubt that Alan is creating some categories outside of mainspace but he certainly is not doing the same types of edits that were done prior to the sanction so IMO he is still upholding the spirit of it. I also still agree with Andy above that CBM is taking an unhealthy interest in Alan's edits. Admins on this site are block happy these days and there are no shortage of admins who are willing to jump in and enforce a sanction. Yet CBM is the first in every case for the last several "violations"? When he does few other edits at all. Its truly troubling but then again as I said above. Admins are above reproach on this site and everyone knows that once an admin makes a decision it must be the right one. There are always a few peers to jump in and back them up. Kumioko (talk) 23:59, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

And yet knowing all that you waste your time here. The logic of what administrators like CBM do is that prevention is ensured by escalating punishments. Surely nobody really believes the "blocks are preventative, not punitive" party line any longer? Malleus Fatuorum 00:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Sure Alan has WP:IDHT problems and at times can be high maintenance. So can be many admins. On balance Alan's overall input is decidedly positive, and it's now been lost to Misplaced Pages because admins will not, or lack the skills to develop more flexible and human ways of dealing with editor issues. I didn't come here to contribute under a harsh regime operating a rigid quasi-legal system which treats content builders as though they were criminals. It is staggering, the number of admins here who seem unable to distinguish long term committed and competent content builders from vandals. I continue to contribute because I think Misplaced Pages is a great project which shouldn't be allowed to crumble just because it is let down by a dysfunctional admin system. I still have faith that it is this admin system, which devalues and disempowers its content builders, that will eventually crumble and be replaced by something more positive.

As an example of the way admins make themselves special by sanctifying their rules, look at the statement above: "The community (not admins, the community at large) has placed restrictions on alan." This appeal to some imaginary "community at large" is used to place on a pedestal an arbitrary restriction made up by a tiny handful of admins. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Alan's edit restriction was unreasonably broad, in my opinion, but I accept that the community decided otherwise. Alan deliberately ignored the restriction, and I expected this block would come. Process has been followed, and Misplaced Pages is the worse for it.-gadfium 00:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Since when did you become elevated to "the community-at-large", Beyond My Ken. --Epipelagic (talk) 05:01, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Kayvan abbassi

Guys, I've found a really odd article that might need some eyes. Have a look at Kayvan abbassi. It was created by an editor named Abbasi Keyvan (talk · contribs), then edited almost exclusively by Sledgepotk (talk · contribs), before being nominated for deletion via redlinked AFD tag by - wait for it - Kayvanabbassi (talk · contribs). All three accounts are exclusive to this article - Abbasi Keyvan and Kaybanabbasi have made their only edits adding content to this article, while the third account's only edits blanked much of that content (only to have it restored by IPs). I don't know if the subject would survive an actual AFD, and was inclined to delete it out of hand as an A7 speedy, but the original version seemed to claim notability. So, since I'm about to leave anyway, I figured I'd punt. My focus is what to do with the article, and as such (and due to time), I have not yet notified the editors named here; if someone wants to do that for me, I'd appreciate it. Thanks! UltraExactZZ ~ Did 20:34, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• The AFD didn't create the new page, looks like either a copy/paste or borked twinkle edit. That is odd, particularly the one that keeps deleting, piecemeal. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:55, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Precisely. The AFD showed up on Snotbot's Bad AFD log as an article with no debate tagged for AFD. Normally, I'd complete it if there's a rationale or tell the editor who tagged it to formulate a rationale. But given the strange edit history here, I didn't know how to proceed - is one of them the subject? Or the other? What about the third guy? UltraExactZZ ~ Did 12:51, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

As the "article" is now no more than a list of external links, I have tagged it for A1 deletion.--ukexpat (talk) 19:08, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Please remove my ban.

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

I would like to protest a ban on Armenian and BLP articles I have been given.

The ban was given for using Twitter as a source for the nationality of UFC fighter Gegard Mousasi.

This is the ANI discussion. As I pointed out, Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources says of Twitter, "Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material." This tweet comes from Gegard Mousasi himself.

However, Admin Gwickwire (he deleted his user page) said "twitter is never a reliable source" which directly contridicts what Misplaced Pages has established as reliable sources. I would like to point out Twitter is also used as a source for the ethnic backgrounds of other UFC fighters Scott Jorgensen and Chad Mendes.

Then User:Little green rosetta said that if the Twitter account is verified or acknowledged by reliable sources as the person's Twitter account, it is an acceptable source.

Here is where things got messy. At the time, I only knew one, apparently unreliable, source that acknowledged this as the account of Gegard Mousasi. However, I later found good sources, such as Yahoo! Sports and Bleacher Report, that confirm it is in fact the real Gegard Mousasi. And UFC President Dana White has talked to Mousasi on that account. He also puts unprofessional pictures of himself up that no website had first. However, at this time I no longer cared about my original edit and Glickwire said, "User now seems to be a bit remorseful, there wasn't any major WP:DDMP type problems, so.. WP:ROPE applies here imo, with the knowledge that next time, it will result in a significant ban/block." I assumed I wouldn't be getting in trouble and left the thread without showing my sources.

But I didn't realize a punishment was being decided behind my back and didn't get to appeal it. Had I known, I would have shown my sources.

As has already been established here, that while I haven't made personal attacks and have not used the undo button more than three times, User:BearMan998, who made this ANI, has said things like "Clearly you should know by now", "I believe this is what got you banned previously", "This is a pattern and it looks like you are repeating it despite multiple warnings and bans in the past" and "Based on your past behavior". These show he has very foul faith. Also, take a look at his contributions. He has spent most of his time on Misplaced Pages for the past month undoing my edits on the Gegard Mousasi and Karo Parisyan pages and trying to get me banned.

And as I told User:King of Hearts, this did not take place on an Armenian page because Mousasi is not a technical Armenian. Nor was the discussion about if he was Armenian. So, if I should be blocked from anything, it should be Iranian and/or MMA articles. But I do not think I should be blocked at all and that is why I'm here. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 22:26, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I assume you're going to notify all involved, as didn't happen with me. My comments still stand, his twitter account is not verified, and therefore no matter how many people think it's the real him, we have no way of knowing. Plus, it's still a primary source, which you continued to use to try to source what it turns out was contentious material after being told not to. I'm still in support of this ban (and remind people that if I remember right, some people were actually quite close to recommending a full site ban). gwickwire_editing 22:38, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

If his boss thinks it's him, we can be pretty sure it is. Plus there are also reliable sources that have conducted interviews with Mousasi. Remember, Little green rosetta said "Is the twitter account in question "verified" by twitter or a RS?". Please elaborate on this: Plus, it's still a primary source, which you continued to use to try to source what it turns out was contentious material after being told not to.

Take note at the end that I said if the ban must remain, it sould be changed to Iranian and/or MMA articles. Mousasi and the edit conflict are not related to Armenia. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 22:47, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

"Nor was the discussion about if he was Armenian" By definition, a discussion about "Armenian" is related to Armenia. How do we know his boss thinks it's him? Has Twitter verified that? Not that I see. You continued to push the issue of using a primary source (regardless of whether or not it's him really) for what apparently was contentious facts after being told they were contentious. That's against WP:PRIMARY, which (not exact quote) says that primary sources must only be used for uncontroversial facts. Still haven't been notified, not sure about the others. gwickwire_editing 22:54, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

By definition, a discussion about "Armenian" is related to Armenia. Which this wasn't?

How do we know his boss thinks it's him? Because he talked to him. Also, so does Bleacher Report, which has interviewed him in person.

I'd also like to see where it says Twitter sources must be verified. Not on WP:TWITTER, for one. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 23:02, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I had a boss talk to someone who was sitting in the restroom stall, thinking it was me. It wasn't. The WP:RSN is where you take questions regarding the reliability of a source - if the Twitter is contested, you go there for external advice/opinion - you sure as hell don't charge forward like a bull in a china shop (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:57, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:No original research: Misplaced Pages's content is determined by previously published information rather than by the personal beliefs or experiences of its editors. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 23:13, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm confused on why you linked that policy, because it applies to 0% of what anyone has said so far. I'll also point out that you still have not notified all involved users as is required. Please do so before continuing. gwickwire_editing 23:16, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Wilkins is talking about his personal life. We can't have that shit here. And I've notified everyone, even though none of you notified me about my ban. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 23:26, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

You made the comment "his boss thinks it's him" - I was proving how wrong you could be by example - and it was an excellent example. Your response was ridiculous, and had no regard for the discussion as a whole (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:31, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

TheShadowCrow, you don't have to answer back. Really, don't go down that road. Your ban should be lifted, in my opinion, so just keep being civil and polite, and everything will work out (hopefully). ~ DanielTom (talk) 23:48, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

You did not notify LGR or King of Hearts. Please do so now. Bwilkins was well within his rights to provide disproof for your "it must be true" thing. gwickwire_editing 23:39, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Done. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 23:58, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Just my 2 cents here - Regarding just the Twitter account, I think we can take it as a reliable enough source. The twitter page is verified by his official website (unless we are disputing that fact), his official facebook page (same here), and the mma website. Which makes it a reliable primary source, in my opinion. No comments on the rest of the issues. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 23:08, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• Twitter should only be used as a source when it is absolutely confirmed that the person's account is the real/official one (e.g. like Justin Bieber's), but even then it is usually better to find secondary sources. Now, in this case, I also happen to think that Gegard Mousasi's account is the real thing, and therefore reliable, but even if it isn't, User:TheShadowCrow's edits were all made in good faith, so I support lifting the topic ban, although it would be best if he could try to avoid using primary sources as references for vital information from now on. Truly, DanielTom (talk) 23:29, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Just a quick question - How does one "absolutely confirm" if a person's account on Twitter is theirs? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 23:36, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

The only way to absolutely confirm is if Twitter verifies that. Twitter uses combinations of photo ID, and other small things to even meeting people in person in the past to verify their accounts. This will provide a blue checkmark next to their name on Twitter. Anything else is "maybe" "probably is" or unconfirmed nonetheless. gwickwire_editing 23:39, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

No, confirmation by a known official source is as good, probably better. The lack of verification from Twitter is often because Twitter hasn't asked, as according to their FAQ they don't accept requests. Peter James (talk) 18:50, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - The issue that led to the topic ban(s) was that the user in question refused to listen when told to stop and discuss the reliability of Twitter, and then proceeded to continue to grasp at straws when told by multiple people it was not going to be reliable in this case, and continued adding it in. That's the issue, not the reliability of the source. gwickwire_editing 23:41, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

The topic ban was based on an ANI discussion - IIRC. Is there a link to that? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:55, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

If you had seen my appeal, you would have found such a link. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 23:58, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Here. ~ DanielTom (talk) 00:01, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

In the initial discussion, I opined that TheShadowCrow was now quite sufficiently "on notice" and that a ban was not required at this juncture, and I suggest that my position still holds. The discussion is at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive791#Proposal:_topic_ban. Collect (talk) 00:02, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

By the way, somehow it did not get successfully archived in full. The entire discussion is at . -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:11, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment It was a 5-1 discussion, with significant policy-based conversation, and not just 1 person's decision. Normal people just don't care about MMA, and thus the conversation didn't attract more people. As the topic ban was properly discussed, the editor had been blocked for similar reasons before (which counts as a warning) is there any good reason why a mere 7 days later, there is a request for removal of the topic ban? I have seen nothing new in the argument, and we sure should not be entertaining such a mere week later (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I think TheShadowCrow is missing the point that his use of Twitter was not the main reason for the ban, but it was his continued violation of WP:BLP. In the discussion, Twitter was just one of many examples. As noted in the initial ANI discussion, TheShadowCrow also misrepresented a source violating WP:STICKTOSOURCE in relation to the Karo Parisyan article and made a misleading edit summary reinstating unsourced POV in the Gegard Mousasi article as well, ignoring the warnings that further BLP violations would result in sanctions. This is what TheShadowCrow should be addressing in this appeal, instead of focusing on the Twitter issue which is a very small part of the reason for the ban. BearMan998 (talk) 00:29, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • "ignoring the warnings that further BLP violations would result in sanctions"

This proves that Bearman thinks he is an Admin. He has acted like he is superior to me in the past and on my talk page. This needs to be addressed. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 00:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• TheShadowCrow continues to belabor one point, losing sight of the whole. They were blocked for BLP violations, in a discussion that revealed his ad-hominem approach demonstrated here again. I don't see any reason to lift the ban, since they don't give any indication of understanding why they were blocked. Since they don't do that, they can't indicate how they would conform to our guidelines going forward. Drmies (talk) 02:38, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• A quick point as my internet time will be very limited over the next few days - TSC was topic banned for more than just using Twiter - we also have disruptive editing, POINTy editing, repeated addition of unreferenced material, repeated addition of poorly referenced material, edit warring etc. GiantSnowman 08:50, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - ShadowCrow, If unbanned, can you agree not to edit the article in question, and try to avoid twitter as a reference because of the issues involved? It should be obvious that no matter the policy or guidelines, the issue is a contentious one. If the user agrees to the stated term, then I would support a removal of the ban. Sephiroth storm (talk) 11:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes I do. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 12:28, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Right, but sadly that only addresses about 1/4 of the issues that led to your topic ban. Once you decide to follow the community nature that is Misplaced Pages, and address the other 3/4 of the issues, then I'd also be willing to entertain such a removal ... in a minimum of 3 months after it was implemented. However, since there's no sign whatsoever that you are choosing to address those behaviours - indeed, your poorly-chosen attack on Bearman above proves that you're simply treating this entire project as a battleground (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I attacked Bearman? He spends 80% of his time attacking me. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 21:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

80%???? Seems rather high, compared to his editing record. (Hint: when trying to prove that you're not attacking someone, using skewed numbers actually is an attack) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:04, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

TheShadowCrow, I once again suggest you ignore BWilkins' provocations. I still think that the topic ban we are discussing is not necessary nor is it reasonable, especially now that TSC has agreed to be more careful with his selection of sources. In any case, let's try to focus on the issue at hand, shall we? ~ DanielTom (talk) 00:17, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

DanielTom, I'll encourage you to pay a little closer attention, and stop referring to "provocations". ShadowCrow's topic ban was in part because of his incivility. He's not only refused to promise to stop his incivility, but it has been extremely apparent in this very thread. Promising to stop 25% of his behaviour is not sufficient - unless of course you choose to believe his rather cherrypicked story at the beginning of this thread. It's people who refuse to read that cause the most problems as they set expectations for editors that cannot be met. Pay a little more attention to the whole story, and not just the bullshit bubblegum you've been fed (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:25, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I did read the archived discussions relevant to this case before commenting here, so the remark you've just made suggesting that I need to "pay a little more attention", besides being extremely ironic (given that it was you who didn't even notice the link in TSC's original statement), really is uncivil and fails to assume good faith. ~ DanielTom (talk) 00:43, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I know Daniel. But I couldn't let him fool anyone reading into thinking I attacked Bearman when I clearly didn't. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 01:45, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Shadow, you stated above "This proves that Bearman thinks he is an Admin. He has acted like he is superior to me in the past and on my talk page. This needs to be addressed. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 00:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)" - that's a personal attack. All editors have the same rights to provide the same warnings on this project. The fact that your "opponent" gave it to you does not mean you get to accuse them of "thinking he is an admin". Your WP:BATTLE mentality and tenuous grasp on even the most basic of Misplaced Pages policies is digging you deeper and deeper. I mean crikey, when User:Dennis Brown !votes "oppose", you know you're in real deep (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:37, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Lifting of Ban Per the above, TheShadowCrow has refused to address the reason for the ban (continued BLP Violations despite multiple warnings including POV edits with no sources and manipulating sources, edit warring to keep such edits, battleground mentality, pointy editing, ect.) and has not shown any inclination to change the behavior that led to the ban in the first place. BearMan998 (talk) 00:47, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - Bearman and Snowman both have their own fictional accounts of why this ban was placed, but the fact remains the ANI discussion was based off the Twitter incident. So, because the Twitter source was the topic that placed the ban, it should also be the topic of removing it. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 02:33, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose simply because no valid rationale has been provided. TheShadowCrow has received an AE block for violating WP:ARBAA2, then I had to block him for sockpuppetry during that block at SPI . Then, this exact same thing happened again, violating ARBAA2 and sockpuppeting to get around it, just a few months after the first time. This was before the topic ban. And these aren't his only blocks , demonstrating a long term pattern. Through all this, he has a facination with using Twitter as a source for many "facts", in spite of being told that this is often clearly against policy, and almost never a good idea to begin with. Its a shame, as I've found him to often be quite reasonable, but when he isn't, he isn't. As it is, he is on the edge of an indef block for the next infraction, so tempting fate by lifting the ban seems a bad idea. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 03:06, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

The Twitter incidents have been addressed, so, in my opinion, it is you, Dennis Brown, who haven't provided a valid rationale. To quote User:TheShadowCrow: I don't see the math behind me being banned for being banned in the past. He is right, too. ~ DanielTom (talk) 11:03, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

The math is simple: a topic ban is going to be based on the history of the editor, a history I've used diffs to demonstrate. We don't topic ban for single incidents, we topic ban for people who show an obvious pattern of disruptive behavior. The reason for the ban wasn't "Twitter", it was his behavior. Twitter use was just the problem du jure when the ban was put into place. He has yet to accept responsibility for his behavior, and instead he attempts to blame shift, thus reinforcing the case for the ban. The history of edit warring, BLP violations, improper sourcing, sockpuppetry and WP:IDHT isn't overcome with a simple pledge to stop use Twitter as a source. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:52, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I didn't know that a topic ban was an effective way to deal with sock puppetry. Silly me. ~ DanielTom (talk) 12:08, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: As DanielTom has now taken to disrupting this thread with hidden text that serves only to denigrate the poster immediately above, he has been requested to refrain from further posts in this thread, or else it could lead to a block. Please see his talkpage for details (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:24, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. I just don't see any proper understanding of the ban reason - or even any attempts to listen to or understand what people are saying here. All I see is battling argument, interspersed with the occasional personal attack. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:50, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Any admins able to help with WP:RM/TR real quick?

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

Surprisingly, WP:RM/TR has a 2-day backlog ... which almost never happens. I managed to perform as many of the moves as I could as a non-admin that were truly technical moves, but I cannot perform the rest. Steel1943 (talk) 02:05, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Boston Marathon bombing suspect

Misplaced Pages:Requests for permissions/File mover

There are 2 request at that page for almost 2 weeks. I beleive an administrator should go and watch that page.--Pratyya 09:43, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Y Both done this morning. —Theopolisme (talk) 00:48, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

WBB ban appeal

I know this has already been requested at ANRFC, but can someone completely uninvolved in past disputes with Will, the BASC, or any of the individual arbitrators assess the consensus and close the RFC for the Will Beback ban appeal. Thanks. On an unrelated and very sad note, Dreadstar, one of the administrators involved in the WBB case, has unfortunately left Misplaced Pages. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:32, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I took a look at it as I believe I am uninvolved, but I really don't know what it is. At least in my view, it's not an RfC or even an RfC/U. I've read what User:SlimVirgin wants ("a summary of the RfC's consensus on the various issues"), but if I hadn't read that and I were to "close" it, that wouldn't have been what I would have done. Considering the breadth of issues discussed on that page, summarizing all of them would be a significant task and I don't believe it would be productive or appropriate. The RfC (I'll call it that only because everyone else is calling it that) has a proposal. I would focus on that proposal if I were to close it.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:04, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Bbb, if you're willing to close it, please go ahead as you see fit. SlimVirgin 16:33, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

This is also currently discussed on the voting breakdown is at BASC. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:46, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Backlog at the AWB Checkuser page

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

There is a pretty big backlog at the AutoWikiBrowser CheckPage. Would someone familiar with this process and has admin rights mind taking a look? Kumioko (talk) 18:57, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Improper use of speedy deletion, asking for article restoration and review of admin's use of deletion tools

Deb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) speedy deleted the article Beautiful Store under "G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion". G11 states: "Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. Note: An article about a company or a product which describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion". The article has been userfied at User:Piotrus/Beautiful Store, and I think it is clear it does not fall under G11. I asked Deb for it to be restored, he refused, citing poor now poor grammar (discussion can be reviewed at User_talk:Piotrus#Deleted_AGAIN_how_should_we_do.3F and User_talk:Deb#Beautiful_Store_deletion. I do not dispute that the article suffers from poor (even very poor...) grammar, this, however, is not a criteria for speedy deletion (articles with poor grammar should simply be tagged wit {{tl|Cleanup-english}/{{Grammar}}). I told Deb he is welcome to prod or AfD it, if he still thinks the grammar is so bad as to warrant a deletion, but he still refuses to restore an article. I am therefore asking for 1) it to be restored due to improper use of speedy (with no prejudice for an AfD), and 2) for Deb actions to be reviewed. I am sure he acted in good faith, but I think he misunderstands when to use speedy (this is clearly not a G11, and grammar is not a speedy criteria), and needs to be cautioned (in a good faithed, friendly manner) to be more careful with the deletion tool. PS. Disclaimer: the user who created the article is a student in a course I am an instructor/ambassador for. PPS. Deb will be notified of this AN thread in a second. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:19, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the article I would have probably have deleted it too, it is very promtional, phrases like "Other than repairing the donated stuffs and reselling business, such as a beautiful Saturday, a beautiful apartment, sharing schools, shops moving companies or government agencies are campaigning to spread the culture of sharing and re-us" are blatant spam - The only way I could see it being a decent article is if it was started again from scratch - as the courses instructor it is your responsibility to ensure these students are aware of the standards we expect. If action is taken here it should be that you educate GaHee and his fellow students about how to properly add to Misplaced Pages--Jac16888 11:26, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Do you even know what spam stands for? If you think some sentences are overly promotional (and I disagree on describing the one above as such), they can be simply deleted, leaving the rest of the content in the article. And the article clearly has some usable content, explaining the readers what this NGO does. For the record, this Korean NGO is similar to Oxfam. Looking at Oxfam lead, I see the following unreferenced text "In all Oxfam’s actions, the ultimate goal is to enable people to exercise their rights and manage their own lives. Oxfam works directly with communities and seeks to influence the powerful, to ensure that poor people can improve their lives and livelihoods and have a say in decisions that affect them. Each organization (Affiliate) works together internationally to achieve a greater impact through collective efforts." This seems about as promotional and non-neutral as the stuff in the deleted article - are you going to delete Oxfam now? :) Of course, nobody is going to delete Oxfam. Perhaps it needs to be tagged with {{Advert}} (which, btw, does not redirect to WP:SPEEDY, and if anyone would try to speedy articles in Category:Articles with a promotional tone it would be a quick path to being stripped of admin powers...). In both articles perhaps a few sentences simply need to go (promotional speak...), but speedy deleting an article about a notable organization is way to much - for anything, but an abuse of admin tools by someone who doesn't want to be bothered with a proper procedure. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Otherstuff? The article is clearly and blatantly written from a promotional pov, if you educated its creator in how to edit Misplaced Pages then you did not do your job properly--Jac16888 11:43, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Administrative backlog