Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:30, 29 May 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 27 days ago on 13 December 2024) challenge of close at AN was archived nableezy - 05:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

Requests for comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talk:Team Seas#Re: the ocean pollution additions

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

Talk:Israel#RfC

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

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

Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RFC_Science-Based_Medicine

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

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

Deletion discussions

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

(Initiated 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

Proposal: topic ban for Jax 0677 regarding templates

As follow up to an RFC/U without serious effect on User:Jax 0677 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to up the quality of the templates he produces, I have no other option than request a topic ban for this user. The outcome of Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Jax 0677 makes clear that there is no progress at all (at best, the result was very, very temporary). The RFC/U was filed by Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars and TenPoundHammer () and endorsed by 11 different edits, including me. ().

The topic ban I am seeking is one to prevent Jax 0677 from creating templates at all for a prolonged period of time.

The talkpage and the archives of the talkpage of mr. Jax show a worrying list of speedy deletions, proposed deletions and nominations for deletion (User talk:Jax 0677/Archive 1, User talk:Jax 0677/Archive 2, User talk:Jax 0677/Archive 3, User talk:Jax 0677/Archive 4, User talk:Jax 0677/Archive 5, User talk:Jax 0677/Archive 6, User talk:Jax 0677) of his templates.

The discussions on the pages "Template for Deletion" often have the same pattern.

1. this, this and this are not linked to each other (random selection: , , , )
2. WP:NENAN is just an essay. (usually when he has no arguments regarding to the content of the template).
3. the article is too long to add wikilinks (
4. I don't know how to add wikilinks to articles.() That is quite remarkable after creating about a thousand (1000) templates?

Each and every template for discussion gets a drawn out battle to preserve the template, many times to the point of filibustering. (Example: ) And many of his templates are deleted, rescued by others or suddenly get enough relevant links to be kept (after nomination).()

Interesting is also his habit to "claim". I don't have a clue how many page names he has already claimed by making a redirect on the name of an album to the name of the group. That must be hundreds. Unfortunately, he did the same with templates. To be precise 179 times. The discussion page shows quite nicely that he is in fact gaming the system and has always a nice pointy policy/essay to waive with, while on the other hand claiming that WP:NENAN is just an essay. I must admit, after being hammered at this point he did not do it again. The nasty part is that I don't have the idea that he would have stopped this behaviour when he was not hammered for it.

It is quite a pattern that he moves from this to that, makes a mess of it and than apologizes for that because he is new on the subject as if there are no manuals or other editors to ask for help or advice.(, , )

I see no improvement in the quality of his templates but I do see a lot of effort put in his dodgy work by others, be it in the drawn out discussion or in plain improving his work. I have given up hope that he can improve to a reasonable standard with templates, so I propose a topic ban to prevent him from creating new templates at all. The Banner talk 15:39, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support - I'm not exactly a regular at TfD or wherever, but I've participated in the RFC/U, and I've seen this user's misdeeds firsthand at AfD. This needs to stop, now, and they refuse almost all attempts to help them, so a topic ban is required. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Like Luke, I'm not a big template guy, but every encounter I've had with this editor has involved a raging case of WP:IDHT, which is the case here too. At some point he'll come here and tell us that WP:BITE somehow protects him, ignoring the fact that after 25,000+ edits, he's no newbie. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support I wouldn't say there haven't been improvements to his template creations, particularly after the RfC/U, but if there is someone who just wants to do the bare minimum to get things done and move on, it would be Jax. Before, he would just create navboxes with only 5 links to pass the threshhold of WP:NENAN, despite the fact the navbox topic had plenty of candidate articles to include; but now, it's as if he's looking for those topic candidates that have the bare mininum of possibly related articles and creating those navboxes, so recent TfDs are just about what counts or not to meet "the rule of five". Because he can usually fix or improve them after being taken to TfD, he can claim a fairly large success rate at TfD. Unfortunately, that's part of Jax's problem. He takes pride in this and refuses to understand how much of everyone's time he is wasting (including his own) through the debate process. The goal of the RfC/U was to reduce the number of navboxes he's created taken to TfD and that's not happening per Banner's comments and my points above. He likes to point out that WP:NENAN is just an essay, yet his sole motivation seems to be driven by another essay, WP:ANOEP, per his comments here. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars 16:52, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support - The RFC/U generated a brief improvement in behaviour but that as rather temporary. -- Whpq (talk) 17:03, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support per above. His behavior improved temporarily, but I see no evidence that he's learned. I'm still seeing him filibuster to save his templates, and I'm still seeing him rushing out templates with too little content. Ten Pound Hammer • 19:03, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support, unfortunately necessary. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support based on his demonstration below that he doesn't really understand the problem. Six months, maybe? He's been creating templates for about two years now, so a six-month break would be pretty significant. Perhaps others would prefer a year. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:48, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support I don't know whether it's a problem of competence or intentional disregard of others' advice, but Jax 0677 needs to stop making templates. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 03:21, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Jax taking a break from creating templates seems like a wise step.  Gong show 15:30, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I am a bit in limbo about the scope of the topic ban. Banning him from creating new templates is an essential part. But must he be banned from the Template for Discussion-procedure too? His past production should be checked and without doubt that will some new TfD-discussions with the aforementioned effects. The Banner talk 11:08, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• • I would suggest it be a ban on any activity relating to templates, broadly construed. The only exception would be the usual one of reverting obvious vandalism. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:07, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Response from Jax_0677

Oppose - While I have made mistakes in the past with my navigation templates (hereinafter referred to as "navboxes"), I have dramatically improved the quality of my work over the past few months, and in my opinion, have made no dramatic mistakes in navboxes since April 25, 2013 when the RfC against me was proposed for closure. The navboxes that I have created during the last few months have had all related articles that I can contemplate included in the navbox, and the navbox has been included in all of the articles in question, with the exception of some of the "Related" articles. While eleven editors approved of the RfC, a topic ban is not a popularity contest.

The majority of the navboxes that I have created have NOT been deleted, and many have been kept. According to WP:POORLY and WP:TOOSHORT, many of these navboxes should never have been brought to TfD in the first place , as the navboxes had the potential to satisfy the requirements despite their imperfections.

To the alleged "pattern":

1. Navboxes are designed to improve connectivity
2. I (as well as others) have replied that WP:NENAN is an essay for navboxes that have four links (not including the parent article). The four links do not usually connect to one another without the navbox. Navboxes for Template:Anata and Template:Analog Rebellion have indeed been kept after TfD with four links. In some cases, NENAN was argued long before the "rule of five" excluded the parent article.
3. If an article is long, it will be difficult to find the links within the article. For this reason, I have added the navbox, which I believe I have the right to do so long as there are a sufficient number of related articles. Additionally, I cannot predict which articles will be deleted before the navbox is finished. I therefore allowed Template:Flynn Adam to go forth and be deleted, because the articles were deleted after I finished the navbox. I created Template:Beyond Fear over one year ago before I understood that the NENAN "rule of five" does not include certain related articles.
4. What I meant is that I can not find a good place in the articles to add the links. It is much easier to add one navbox to five or more articles than it is to add four "See Also" sections.

I am well within my right to dispute any legitimate charges against me or the navboxes that I create by stating legitimate points about why the navbox should be kept. According to the filibuster article on Misplaced Pages, "A filibuster is a type of parliamentary procedure where debate is extended, allowing one or more members to delay or entirely prevent a vote on a given proposal", which I can not do on a written forum.

I have not "claimed" a template name in more than several months. I stopped claiming template names weeks before the September 14th RfD was filed against me on dozens of articles. Fixing this error was a large undertaking, which I completed in a timely manner. I am also well within my right to redirect the name of an album or song to the applicable musician or ensemble per WP:NSONG.

I have only recently started creating navboxes about universities, and while the community does not want for me to make mistakes on these navboxes, it is going to happen. These navboxes have had all of the links about the university that I can contemplate, have been placed on all of the articles except some related articles, which is all that I have been told to do. In fact, 100% of the university navboxes that I have created that were brought to TfD have been kept, with few links added to them.

The Banner is not able to name one navbox that I have created since April 25, 2013 (one month ago tomorrow) AFTER the RfC on me was proposed for closure that was not done at least reasonably correctly per User_talk:The_Banner#Topic_Ban_Proposal. The mistake I made was listing LBC Crew under "Related" instead of "Musical ensembles", which in my opinion, is minimal at best, considering that the four other links in the navbox do not all link to one another.

Niteshift36 has repeatedly called me the "D" word on numerous occasions.

I feel that this Topic Ban, and many of the TfDs being filed against me are that my navboxes are not perfect instead of an effort to improve the encyclopedia. I feel that I am being hammered just for making small mistakes.

Again, while I have made mistakes in the past, this is not a popularity contest, nor a device by which to punish users who are attempting to create an encyclopedia. Topic Bans are an effort to protect the encyclopedia from users that want to damage it. The fact that my recent mistakes have been minimal at best, that many of the TfDs are simply walking out of my past (which should curb over time now that I have added to a navbox every article that I can contemplate and have added that navbox to all of the articles in that navbox with the exception of some related articles) and that I was new to university navboxes and coloring them that a topic ban on anything other than universities is not in order at this time.

I can not control which of my creations are taken to TfD, but I can act to make my navboxes better.

I will be happy to answer any questions about navboxes that you have, or to address any issues stated in the Topic Ban that I may not have covered. No question is out of bounds, and I will answer them all, even if the answer is that it is none of your business.

Thank you very much for your attention.

Sincerely,

Jax_0677 --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:09, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Excuses, excuses, excuses and poor Jax is the innocent victim of a bunch of nasty guys. Backed up with a lot of distracting links to other pages. Unfortunately, your answer only illustrates that you don't understand or plainly ignore the problem. The Banner talk 17:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Reply - The vast majority of my efforts have contributed to a fuller encyclopedia, and I have addressed all issues against me here. I only said that "a topic ban is not a popularity contest", and The Banner seems to be acting sarcastically here.

1. Which links are distracting, and why are they distracting?
2. What exactly/specifically do I not "understand"?
3. If The Banner is ignoring my questions, how can The Banner critique me for ignoring the problem?
4. I have asked The Banner this before, and The Banner could not come up with one legitimate answer, so I ask again. Can one navbox that I wrote related to music started AFTER the RfC on me was proposed for closure (on April 25, 2013) that was not done at least reasonably correctly be named? --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• 1) What is "the D word"? Maybe I need to use it again. It can't be "dick" because I said you were being a dick once in that discussion. Of course, call a spade a spade might apply here. 2)What does that AFD have to do with this other than to be a perfect example of how you latch onto a single essay (in that case WP:CHEAP) and just repeat it over and over as if it were given from above on 2 stone tablets? 3) Are you over the age of 12? If you are, the whole "Niteshift called me a name" routine is fairly childish looking.Niteshift36 (talk) 18:03, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that you fail to grasp that your behaviour and sloppy work is the problem here. You did indeed enough work to fill the encyclopedia, but your work is too often just ballast. More letters and digits, no worthy content. The Banner talk 18:06, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Reply - To Niteshift36:

1. The "D" word is what you just said. Policy states that one should be cautious about referring to another individual by using that article.
2. The fact that Niteshift36 referred to me using that article during the AfD once is enough to call Niteshift36's character into question.
3. I am over the age of 12, but I won't give out my age. The fact that Niteshift36 referred to me using that article calls Niteshift36's character into question.

To The Banner:

1. I have justified most if not all of my responses, and The Banner has the burden of proof that I have not. The Banner has failed to produce any "sloppy work" on music templates that I have started in the past 30 days, nor has The Banner proven that I have filibustered.
2. I would hardly call my work ballast with zero worthy content. I have produced several hundred templates over the past several months. The point is, that the goal of a topic ban is not to reprimand, but is to protect the encyclopedia. My navboxes have been of decent quality as of late. The things that are going to TfD are walking out of my past, and in some cases were started more than one year ago. I allowed Template:Beyond Fear and "Template:Arkaea" to proceed unabated because I realized after the fact that many "Related" articles do not count toward the NENAN rule of five.

To All:
While I understand that some of my templates should go to TfD, I am very frustrated that there are MANY templates at TfD that should not have ever been brought there in the first place , which includes templates with 5 relevant links. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:19, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

If you understand that some your templates should go to TfD, I recommend not creating such templates. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars 23:32, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Reply - In many of those cases, such as "template:dnbtu" and "template:unco", hindsight is 20/20. What I should have said is that "While I understand that some of my templates should have gone to TfD..." --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• Well, if this were a RFC about my character, your reply might have something to contribute. As it stands, it's a pointless red herring. First, my saying that you're being a dick isn't a matter of character. It's behavior. Second, none of that has any bearing on your inability to follow the standards. One could easily call your avoidance of the discussing your own actions by complaining about the actions of someone else months ago could be called dickish. And I didn't ask you to divulge your age. I asked if you were over the age of 12, an age where the "he called me a name" thing usually stops looking like a valid defense. Either way, I highly doubt bitching whining complaining about it will convince others to change their support of topic banning you. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:00, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Reply - OK, I have read WP:BLUDGEON, and I realize that I may need to respond to several items at once with shorter answers (i.e. "Navbox has a sufficient number of links") instead of responding to one item at a time with longer comments. With that being said, if my music navboxes have been of acceptable quality for the past month, if several of the unchanged navboxes have passed TfD, my most recent university navboxes have also been of acceptable quality, and the issue is the method by which I participate in TfD discussions , I think it would be prudent to only ban me from TfD, not from actually creating navboxes. Assuming that I were banned from TfD, I would have no method by which to defend navboxes that I have created. In the interest of answering all questions, calling me the "D" word is in violation of WP:CIVIL. Thoughts?
Additionally, I feel that have been unduly scolded for making simple the simple mistake of placing {{tianu}} and {{wtw}} on the wrong people's pages. I know people do not want me to make any mistakes, but it is going to happen. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:11, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Outside editor comment - I think you've missed the point, Jax. We all make mistakes but the issue here is not that people don't want you making mistakes. It's that they don't want you making the same mistakes, repeatedly, ad nauseam, hence the proposal for a topic ban. The fact that 11, not the usual 2, but 11 editors endorsed an RFC on your editing is very, very damning. Blackmane (talk) 01:12, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Reply - I have read WP:BLUDGEON and I have recently improved the quality of my navboxes. The fact is that we are where we are. --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:35, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• Still worrying about "the D word"? Just reinforces what I've been saying. Keep proving me correct. It's becoming a parody at this point. As for your misuse of {tianu}, here is an idea....just stop using it. Stop being the template police and just keep your nose out of other people's affairs. You clearly have enough trouble managing your own affairs. Leave the misplaced concerns for someone else to worry about. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:33, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Reply - I was only pointing out a violation of WP:CIVIL. I have kept {{tianu}} for users who have few edits and/or made their first edits only weeks ago. I don't believe I am acting like template police if many of my navboxes with over 6 links are being sent to TfD and being kept. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:05, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• Well, maybe you should just keep your nose out of it since you're not doing such a good job. And clearly, you weren't paying close attention and checking edit histories or you wouldn't have placed it on pages with substantial numbers of edits. Then you turn around and blame it on BOLD....that's your problem. You never just admit an error, you always use some essay to justify your mistakes and then repeat it over and over. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:49, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Reply - Niteshift36, "I admit that the statements that I have given during TfD discussions have been lengthy, and perhaps I need to shorten them". I have checked edit histories as of late before using {{tianu}}, so I am learning from my mistakes. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:17, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• And why? Not because you listened to the people there. Because you read another essay. In any case, I still support your topic ban. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:34, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Reply - The essay clarified what people were saying. Also, if my statements during TfD are the problem, why should I be banned from creating new templates? --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:35, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Ban on my participation in TfD versus ban on my creating navboxes

I notice that this proposal for topic ban arose out of two things:

1. My imperfections surrounding University navboxes
2. My statements given during TfD discussions

I have only been working on university navboxes for a short period of time, and have improved the quality of such navboxes dramatically over the past few days. With that being said, I am not certain that it is prudent to ban me from creating navboxes. I admit that the statements that I have given during TfD discussions have been lengthy, and perhaps I need to shorten them. However, if my navboxes have improved to an acceptable level as of late, prohibiting me from creating new navboxes may not necessarily protect the encyclopedia. While I have made mistakes in the past, the fact is that we are where we are. Thank you! --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:05, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

We have seen that the quality of your work collapsed as soon as you had the idea we were not looking any more. The Banner talk 10:46, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Reply - I never had the idea that no one was looking, and no one can prove that is the case. At User_talk:Jax_0677/Archive_3#Megas, Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars told me:

1. Add all pertinent and relevant articles to the navbox, not just 5 (unless that's all there is).
2. Add the navbox to each of the articles listed in the navbox (although not necessarily to all "related articles")

He never said anything about the formatting of the navbox nor that all related articles do not count toward the rule of five, and again, that was the first time I have created university navboxes. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:49, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

The final proposal

I propose a six month topic ban from any activity relating to templates, broadly construed. The Banner talk 10:46, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Reply - This statement is vague, and should at least be clarified. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it's not vague so much as all encompassing. The proposal can be basically summed up as a topic ban from the creation of templates, discussion of templates at TfD (whether they are your creations or not) and editing of existing templates. (If I've missed anything, please feel free to add them in.) Blackmane (talk) 13:57, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I do not know why I seem to care or am mentioning anything here, but I would rather see a user like this mentored in the proper creation of said templates than simply told not to create any for any length of time. I firmly believe that we learn by doing, making mistakes, being told what specific mistakes we made, and then not making those mistakes again. The first step there is doing. I feel that if there was to be a topic ban of sorts imposed, that it should be for no longer than about a month during which time Jax should be reading all of the "How to build a template" documentation and bettering and learning about parser functions, magic words, transclusion, and all of the other goodies that are kind of required if a person really wants to be able to create good templates. I'm going to stop babbling now before this gets tl;dr... Technical 13 (talk) 14:14, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Reply - Trying to be perfectly objective, I agree with Technical 13, in that "we learn by doing, making mistakes, being told what specific mistakes we made, and then not making those mistakes again". After being told how to create university navboxes, I have improved the quality of such navboxes dramatically. While {{IPFW}} did not start out ideal, all of the links were still there. Additionally, since I have had few to no issues with existing navboxes, I do not feel it is prudent to preclude me from working on existing navboxes, or to preclude me from working on anything other than navboxes, if that is even the best solution. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:29, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

This may be an idealistic view, but consider this ban as an enforced sabbatical so that others can look into the ones you have created and deal with them whether they can be kept, improved or, failing that, deleted without having to worry that new problematic templates will appear. In this period, it would be looked upon most favourably if you did go and look for a mentor to discuss template creation. The question that some may raise would why did it take an RFC/U and a topic ban proposal for you to consider this as opposed to doing exactly that when the first issues were raised with regards to your templates? Blackmane (talk) 20:01, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Reply - I was under the impression that templates could be stubs, just like articles could be stubs (stubs are speedily deleted on Spanish Misplaced Pages). I will answer the question with a question. What have I done since April 25, 2013 that rises to the level of a template ban, instead of perhaps a ban on university navboxes combined with a ban on participating in ANY template for discussion forums? Also, if a ban is imposed, it needs to be specified whether or not the ban includes userspace navboxes. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:10, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

The ban proposal is not time limited to how far back an editor's behaviour is considered, although common sense is usually applied such that for editors who have been here for years things they did several years ago are generally discounted. However, an editor's actions within the last 6 - 9 months are usually considered fair game for assessment. I don't intend on supporting/opposing as I haven't delved back far enough so making any sort of judgement on incomplete information on my part would not be fair. Unless others make vehement objections to it, i think an allowance for userspace only navboxes would be reasonable. It would be patently ridiculous to topic ban you from making templates and encourage you to learn how to do it better without giving you some sort of area to do your testing and learning. However, I am not familiar with how templates are transcluded around so I'll have to leave that to more experienced voices to discuss. Blackmane (talk) 08:58, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I am in favor of a 6-month ban on creating templates and participating in TfD and a 1-month ban on editing templates. After the first month, earlier creations can be improved/fixed/completed, in particular any that are brought to TfD. He can do that without the need to participate in the TfD itself. The improvements must be in line with the concerns raised here and in the RfC/U. Any questions brought up on his talk page should be immediately addressed and no further editing should be done until resolved. However, I will not object to the harsher ban. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars 17:36, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Jax, if it was me, I would jump to indicate that this offer is fair and perhaps request the ability to create sandbox drafts of potential navbox creations to be reviewed by another editor that subscribes to NENAN after 2-3 months. Technical 13 (talk) 02:24, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars's proposal seems reasonable and addresses the issue. I would be in support of this, and also would not object to the harsher ban if this proposal doesn't gain traction. -- Whpq (talk) 12:03, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support 6 month ban on anything to do with templates, broadly construed, as proposed. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:23, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support 6 months, broadly construed. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:32, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

editing a protected page

Template:FOXNetwork Shows (current and upcoming) needs to be removed from The Cleveland Show.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:14, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

This is the kind of thing I'd normally be willing to do at a protected page, but it looks as if the protection is related to the issue of removing the template. Let's wait until protection is over or until you get consensus at talk. Nyttend (talk) 21:12, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Yep, that was one of mine. I protected it because there was edit warring over whether the show was cancelled, but there had been no official announcement from Fox. If there's been an announcement, then I can just remove the protection, but if not it's probably just going to lead to more edit warring. If there are any unrelated and uncontroversial edits that need to be made, they can be requested on the article's talk page using {{edit protected}}. — Mr. Stradivarius 09:12, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Interpreting involvedness

Right folks, here is a question on admin conduct and use of tools to settle a difference of opinion....

As an admin, let's say I find an article that has some content which violates some guidelines such as a BLP with material sourced from a tabloid (or medical article using primary sources or whatever), and I remove that content. Now let's say another editor is unhappy with this and reverts. Now if this continues, am I as an admin allowed to block the person? I'd say "no" and instead alert a noticeboard for a hitherto uninvolved admin as I have adopted a position, but if the consensus is here that I can then I am happy to go with consensus. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:38, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, the BLP would be a special case: you're protecting a living person. I'll think a bit on the other - it appears to me that the article is not something you typically edit - you stumbled across it for some reason, and it should not make you involved (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:48, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Casliber has sufficient wiki status that they could probably get away with it under the "any reasonable admin" common sense provision / loophole but it's just better not to. Two editors relaying the same message once is superior to a single editor saying the same thing like five times with links to policies and all that. It's a lot harder for a misguided editor to think a "power hungry admin" is picking on them if their calm, neutrally worded report on the appropriate noticeboard is validated by a second voice. And no, posting on boards doesn't "cause drama" -- it's how folks react to posting that determines whether there is the dreaded dramaz or not. NE Ent 10:51, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Ent makes a good point. If the edit was purely maintenance (removing blp problems on an article I've never edited, I would call maintenance) and not preference, it isn't involved, but drama is a bigger issue than policy. If it isn't urgent, I would just ask someone else to review. If it is very disruptive, I've been known to block, then just drop a note here and ask for review, which is usually quick and painless. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 12:49, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect to User:Bwilkins, I am not on board with the argument that a correction of a BLP violation is an exemption to being involved. It is an exemption to 3RR, but that's a different kettle of fish. I do agree that a pure maintenance edit should not be construed as involved, I am surprised (and disagree) that removing a BLP violation is what we mean by maintenance. I think of maintenance as correcting typos, spelling, fixing malformed references, etc. So I would strongly support reporting the editor, rather than doing the blocking oneself. It isn't like there is a shortage of admins. (I can imagine an exception—if it was a time when few were around, and the editor was making multiple seriously bad edits, it would be acceptable to block, then ask for a block review, but that doesn't fit the circumstances of the hypothetical.)--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:18, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Agree with SPhilbrick, one of the main purposes of not involved, is that the single admin is not both prosecutor and judge in substantive editing decisions that call for consensus. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:27, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

It depends on the BLP violation, granted, but if an admin reverts "Bob is a known Nazi sympathizer" then I don't see how that makes him involved, and do consider that maintenance. Like everything else around here "it depends", but removing a BLP violation can be purely maintenance if the only reason it was removed was to make it comply with policy, just as fixing a formatting error makes it comply with MOS. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 13:36, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I was going to go a little further. An editor adds "Bob is gay" to an article, and you - the admin - remove it. The editor comes back and adds "Bob's well-known homosexual partner is Some Otherguy" with or without a false citation. I'm sorry, that admin can block, should block, and should also re-revert the BS BLP violations. This is not rocket science - it's about protecting the project and the person (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:02, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't disagree. The motivation for the edit is key in determining what is maintenance and what is editorial. And again, if you think that someone might question it, drop it off here afterwards. That removes all doubt, and is usually quickly closed after a couple of editors review it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 18:08, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Would you say the same about: "Bob is known Nazi sympathizer " ? Just on your interpretation of BLP = meaning it is the case that the statement is NPOV (relevant) and verifiable. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:45, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Probably not if it was actually in the source, unless there was some other factor clearly indicating it was added in malice or intentionally as a BLP violation (editor or article history, prior warnings, etc.) This falls under "it depends" and the more specific you get, the harder it is to generalize. This is why if I must block to prevent ongoing disruption now in a case that is borderline, I post here and ask for review. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 13:57, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Alan & SPhilbrick, I disagree. Currently, an admin can protect a page and, then, remove a blatant BLP violation; that's accepted and nobody would reproach the protecting admin for his actions. So I don't see why doing the reverse should be any different: an admin who removes a blatant BLP violation and then protects the page when another editor reverts his edits (or blocks the editor in question) should not be censured. Of course, that's merely IMHO. Salvio 13:46, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

(e/c)Any editor can remove a blatant BLP violation repeatedly. So, they are acting as an editor not as an administrator, and involved in an editing dispute, so another administrator should do the administrator things. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:13, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

That's immaterial: warnings can be issued by anyone (and, so, an admin warning someone is acting as an editor), but I can block someone I've just warned... Salvio 15:52, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

A warning is not editing an article, and it's not editing another editor's edits. A warning is a statement of administrative standards, without editing another editors edits, so it is not an editorial function. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:22, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay - yes these are egregious examples - but what if it was more subtle than that? Say, material which is seemingly innocuous but either unsourced or sourced to a tabloid (in a BLP) or is a primary source (in a medical article) and not overtly malicious? Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:06, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

My perspective is that you let someone else block if waiting is reasonable. If they are active and you feel you must block now, and you can do so under the exception to WP:INVOLVED, you block then immediately drop it off here for instant review. This way if you are wrong, the damage can be minimized. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 16:06, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Right, to put this all in perspective, this does refer to a recent situation at the article Connie Talbot. Essentially admin John (talk · contribs) removed segments of material sourced only to tabloids, which the main contributor J Milburn (talk · contribs) objected to and reverted. John reverted that twice. There was much heated conversation at User_talk:John#Talk:Connie_Talbot, Talk:Connie_Talbot#Tabloid_sources and User_talk:J_Milburn#May_2013 - in the last there is some discussion between me and John, who opines that he is able to block other editors on the Connie Talbot page as he isn't involved. Anyway, so I wasn't the admin but a wiki-friend of the editor being threatened with a block. As far as the original dustup, J Milburn has promised to look for other sources. I do take exception to content editors being treated like naughty schoolchildren and am bemused at John stating I'm unaware of involved. After we talked past each other, I mentioned I'd seek 2nd/3rd opinions...so what do folks think...is John involved in this scenario? Or am I interpreting it too broadly? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:19, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Color me dense, but I don't see how statements like "It is also available as a 13 track mp3 album without a bonus track from Amazon.com.Amazon" are a BLP issue . So John was definitely involved as a regular editor. 5.12.68.204 (talk) 00:40, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Seeing how you have no reason to be bothering these people -- The color you want me to paint is a color I cannot say. †TE†Talk 00:54, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Colour me confused.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:27, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

This edit makes him look involved. Others may as well. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ / Join WER 18:12, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Is User:Tomcat7 overstepping

Tomcat7 (talk · contribs) and I have been warring over the inclusion of templates about 6 novel at Fyodor Dostoyevsky. In order to get a consensus, I brought the issue to WP:NOVELS. I opened Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Novels#Derivative_works_and_cultural_references_templates on May 4. Subsequently, 2 people agreed with him that the templates should not be included and 4 agreed with me and one respondent was sort neutral with a case-by-case basis response. Following this discussion on May 7, he has removed the templates from Fyodor_Dostoyevsky. Tomcat7, has proclaimed that this result is meaningless because it is 1.) a few users, 2.) a "wikiproject talk page, instead on a talk page of a policy or guideline" and 3.) templates for an author's works are unrelated to the author.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:14, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• If that is an accurate representation of their argument, it's a very mixed bag. Item 1. could be valid but is not; this is not "a few" editors. They could argue it's not an overwhelming consensus, I suppose, but again, this is not "a few" people. Item 2. strikes me as completely irrelevant; the talk page of a project is precisely where such content (structure, style) discussions should take place. Item 3. belongs in a content discussion--like the original discussion Tony pointed to. FWIW, I'm the one participant in that discussion who's sort of in the middle. Drmies (talk) 13:49, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Is there anything short of WP:3RR warring that will get some third party responses here.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:14, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Make your case, succinctly, on the article talk page first, methinks. GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:16, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

That seems like odd advice for two reasons: 1.) only 1 of the 7 discussants at WP:NOVEL thought that this issue was one that should be handled on a case by case basis. and 2.) It seems counterproductive to try to argue this issue on each author's page as conflicts arise.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:24, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

From my participation at Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#Review_shopping, it is my understanding that User:Tomcat7 has a reputation for taking inappropriate actions if he does not get his way. If people feel that his action in response to feedback at Dostoyevsky were inappropriate, it is very likely a part of a larger problems where an editor creates a lot of trouble for the community when decisions don't go his way.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:24, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• I have reverted Tomcat7 and left my rationale at Talk:Fyodor_Dostoyevsky#Trying_to_avoid_a_brewing_edit_war.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:15, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• TonyTheTiger appears not to have informed Tomcat7 of this WP:AN entry. I have done so. It seems to me that the discussion at WT:NOVELS has not yet reached consensus, so it is not appropriate yet to insist on any one approach for the Dostoyevsky article. There should be an RfC about the whole issue (in general, not about Dostoyevsky alone). The personal attack and threatening behaviour in this could perhaps also be addressed. --Stfg (talk) 15:26, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
  • RFC is open.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:35, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Oversighting an impostor's block log?

I recently looked to see if someone created an account where the username is my own first and last name. What I discovered triggered my memories from 2007, back when I was a freshman in high school, when some troll, who attended the same school as me, created a lot of sockpuppets to troll Misplaced Pages, and used my real name as a username for one of his accounts; I look up "User:firstname lastname" (censored my actual name due to privacy concerns) to discover that while the userpage does not exist, it shows that account's block log where the account was blocked in February 2007, a month before I joined Misplaced Pages myself (in fact, back when I didn't have much privacy concerns, I was originally going to use my real name in a firstname-lastname format as my username but it was taken so I signed up as lastname-firstname for a couple months before having increasing privacy concerns to the point that I had a bureaucrat change my name to NHRHS2010; subsequently I became aware that this troll used my firstname-lastname as a username for one of his sockpuppets). I didn't know what was going on, but during the same period of time, I was frequently getting bullied in school. Little did I know that I would have an impersonator here in Misplaced Pages! Due to an increasing concern that people would look up my name on Misplaced Pages, would it be possible to request oversight for the block log of that impersonating account? Thank you. NHRHS2010 the student pilot ✈ 01:23, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

The whole user can be hidden, but you will need to contact Misplaced Pages:Requests for oversight privately. --Rschen7754 01:29, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Done. I emailed User:Oversight as that page directed me to do. I just wanted to make sure if oversight was possible in such a situation. NHRHS2010 the student pilot ✈ 01:54, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

See the "I missed that day at target practice" section of WP:STOCKS. It's apparently possible to oversight a very very active account, so a short-lived troll shouldn't be hard. Nyttend (talk) 01:56, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. I joined Misplaced Pages on March 2007 and I heard words that this person started trolling around October 2006 and disappeared around Christmas 2007, at least it was not directed at me but it annoyed a lot of admins and other legitimate users; subsequently I've had to deal with other trolls on Misplaced Pages and YouTube, several of them directed at me, most notably a group of trolls on YouTube who would refer me and my friends by the WWII dictators' names (I was referred as "Hitler", one friend was referred as "Stalin" while the other was referred as "Mussolini"). I was concerned that this trolling would never stop as it lasted more than two years but I haven't been called Hitler since early 2011. NHRHS2010 the student pilot ✈ 02:02, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

We can fix the last part for you if you'd like! :) Killiondude (talk) 02:52, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean by "last part"? I sent a private Misplaced Pages email to User:Oversight mentioning the account with my real name. NHRHS2010 the student pilot ✈ 03:18, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Presumably Killiondude means that we could start calling you Hitler. Note the :) afterward — he's clearly joking. Nyttend (talk) 13:27, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Is Vic There?

I added a CSD template to it yesterday. Today, I find out that the category of it isn't showing and it isn't showing in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. I'd like it deleted so I can move User:Launchballer/Is Vic There? there. Thank you.--Launchballer 08:41, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

That's because you need to put a reason in the template, or Category:Candidates for speedy deletion is not activated. I've performed the move for you - could you sort out all the stuff like categories and WikiProject tags, etc.? Best — Mr. Stradivarius 09:00, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Personal Attacks on own Talk Page Tolerable???

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

Hello! Yesterday, I witnessed Personal attacks and abuse by an editor, named Darkness Shines. I proposed an article for deletion, notified him through Twinkle, and got a sweet reply on my talk here with intolerable and authority posing behaviour. I, on his astonishing and disgusting comments, replied with this diff on his talk, and this reply was neither a rude comment, nor an abuse. Still I was shocked at his replies afterwards. I was attacked personally and he used abusive comments both on the talk and by the edit summaries. His comments with additional abusive summaries like , should be taken in note. I was asked that "as this is my talk page, fuck off and admit it." and on warning for reporting to administrator for these attacks, I was given the special reply of "My talk page TG, my rules, fuck of till you can admit you are wrong.". In short, I just want to know that "Are these beautiful words tolerable, and will not be considered as abusive personal attacks if made on ones talk?"? Can someone abuse, Can someone attack, Can someone violate our rules on his talk????

I need a reply, either a consent for permitting such behaviour on one's own talk, and if not, a block. Faizan 13:42, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Read WP:NOTCENSORED And if I wish to swear on my talk page I will. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:48, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED is for articles or images will always be acceptable to all readers, not for abusive talk page comments! Let the administrators answer now. Faizan 13:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Swearing is one thing, being rude is another. It is possible to use profanity without being rude, and it is also possible to be rude without swearing. You were clearly being rude at Faizan on your talk page, and censorship was clearly not an issue. smtchahal 13:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that this offense was for the first time. He has been issued warnings and has been blocked even several time before. Faizan 13:57, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Where are the personal attacks though? "Fuck off" is clearly uncivil, but not a personal attack, it tells nothing about the contributor, it just indicates (too strongly) that you want them to stop whatever they have done to piss you off. He is not saying that you are a (fill in personal attack here), he isn't washing that something bad happens to you either; he is uncivil and has WP:OWN issues, but he shouldn't be berated (or blocked) for things he hasn't done. Fram (talk) 14:02, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

The diff where DS calls Faizan a "nationalist prick"...? GiantSnowman 14:03, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Which is...? Sorry, I thought I checked them all, I don't see that one; obviously, that would be a serious PA, but in which diff is it? Fram (talk) 14:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

The same thing I was asking! Is this behaviour, whether or not it is Personal Attack, will it be tolerated? Will are Wikipedians be exempted? That was my question, please read it carefully! Faizan 14:07, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

This one] Darkness Shines (talk) 14:07, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hidden in the edit summary here. GiantSnowman 14:09, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

BTW, that was directed at Mrt, not Faizan. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:09, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

That makes it OK then? Jeez... GiantSnowman 14:11, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, will then it become acceptable if directed at Mrt3366? Faizan 14:12, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

BTW, that was directed at Mrt, not Faizan. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:09, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

(ec)Ah, so it wasn't in the OP. Giant Snowman, please don't suppose that people will know out of the blue where a statement comes from. Anyway, that PA wasn't against Faizan and not about this incident (seems to have more to do with Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#What I would really like. Using a different discussion to handle that seems to be a bit off. Is there anything actionable in Faizan's report? Fram (talk) 14:15, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Will then it become acceptable if directed at Mrt3366? Faizan 14:17, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Fram, you can see it in the very first diff posted on this topic. I would suppose that people would read that. GiantSnowman 14:19, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I was obviously over the top in calling him a prick, but he is a nationalist Feel free to block me, I honestly am beyond caring anymore. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:21, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

(ec)It was the second diff, not the first one, and no, I don't read the edit summary on the left side of the diff, certainly not when that side has nothing to do with the posting by the OP (Faizan only posted that diff as an indication of "his" civility, not as an example of what DS does wrong, so I guess that even Faizan didn't read the diff he posted, since he didn't complain about PAs directed at others, but only about non-existent PA's directed at him). As for the comment against MrT, any reason that that can't be discussed in the topic where it belongs, the one at ANI I already posted? Fram (talk) 14:25, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I posted that diff only as a proof for the continuity of discussion. I replied him for his post on my talk, and that's it, which I want to show! Faizan 14:30, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, feel free to accept my apologies in return for erroneously expecting that an admin who says "DS, calling someone a "nationalist prick" and then telling them to "fuck off"", means that the first and the second are actually directed at the same person (what the "them" seems to indicate) and not at two "different" persons in two "different" discussions. Don't patronize people when you aren't acting any better, to put it mildly. Fram (talk) 14:40, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• Can everyone stop squabbling? DS has a long history of lack of self-control. He flies off the handle and says things he shouldn't. Some of them he regrets later, some he doesn't. In this case, he was uncivil to Faizan and attacked MrT (with whom he has a LONG history). Whether he should be sanctioned I leave up to others as I have some history with DS (whom I like, btw) that makes me WP:INVOLVED. I think he should apologize to Faizan, but Faizan also needs to understand that there are many Wikipedians who use swear words and it's generally tolerated. I'm not saying that I personally approve of it, but it's just the way it is.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:50, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Whatever, it was not squabbling. Even if others' use it, they should be stopped too, instead of promotion. Now what? Are others' permitted to use these words legally from now on? Faizan 14:54, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the word "squabbling" was mostly directed at my highly respected fellow admins. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 15:12, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, many Wikipedians do use swear words. But to use them at every occasion when one is not happy (I say this based on my extensive interaction with the said user), can cross the threshold of what should generally be tolerated or deemed acceptable. Especially when such behaviour is displayed with previously unacquainted users, to whom such display of behaviour can appear very rude. We are all here to help build an encyclopedia, and since interaction with others is something that we cannot avoid, I think aggressive behaviour like this should generally be controlled. It is for the benefit of both the user concerned and others whom interact with him. There are WP:CIVIL ways to talk to others when you disagree with them, and I don't think coarse language or aggressive behaviour are compatible with those manners. Mar4d (talk) 15:08, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
• DS knows far better, based on his tenure and block log. As per escalation, blocked fro 2 weeks for NPA. Please file this at WP:ANI in the future (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:39, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Pay day loans adverts

I've deleted User:LinnieEva and User:LucasScal for advertising pay day loans on their user pages. The format of both pages was the same, with a different target link - but a rather similar page at the target. Looks like a sort of franchised marketing thing which is telling them to put these pages up here and the format to use. I've indeffed both with autoblock on. (I'd only warned the first one - then changed it when the second appeared.) If anyone else finds any more of these, we might nip this in the bud by doing something the same as I did. Peridon (talk) 14:32, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I have blocked a few accounts with similar formating. It is not just pay day loans they are pushing. This particular spammer appeared just a couple of days ago. See edit filter 499. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 16:06, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I routinely block (indef, with autoblock) all editors I find whose sole contributions are spam userpages, since they're generally spam-only accounts. Nyttend (talk) 17:53, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I have done the same. It's an easy problem to fix, if I do make a mistake - and explaining to an innocent user how what they posted can look like spam is educational to the user. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 14:57, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Same here, though occasionally I go further. If spammer is obviously using typical spammer tactics and they are posting on their user talk pages, I will revoke the talk page access and let them ask for an unblock through other channels. For example, User:Spencer143. The reason I do that is that I have seen some user talk page spammers keep posting after their block notice. I also delete the spammy user/user talk pages even if somebody has already blanked or unlinked the spam link. I don't want the spammer to have any chance of their link being found through search engines. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 15:55, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Requests for comment on user:Xenophrenic

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

There is currently a WP:RFC/U on User:Xenophrenic. There is an ongoing arbitration case in which many editors involved in the WP:RFC/U, including user:Xenophrenic, user: Malke 2010, user:Arthur Rubin, and user:North8000, are parties to. On the tea party moved, the Arbitration Committee has examined the evidence. As of now, the likly finding of fact for User:Xenophrenic is:

Xenophrenic has edited Tea Party movement since March 2010, and is the second leading contributor with 397 edits - 63 of which have been reverts; 5 of which are identified as self-reverts or removing vandalism. Xenophrenic was blocked in 2011 for breaking community sanctions on Tea Party movement, and was blocked twice in 2007 and once in 2013 for edit warring on other articles. Xenophrenic has made 573 edits to the talkpage. There was no community support for a topic ban, Xenophrenic is not named as a party, and there is little evidence presented in the case to point to sanctions.

By point of bring this up here, is that very few of the editors involved in the WP:RFC/U are unbiased, including myself. Most are involved in the Arbitration case or at least involved in editing articles on U.S. Politics. With that being the case, I would ask that non-involved editors take a look at the WP:RFC/U. The Link is here.

I don't know what is going on here but Casprings just dumped part of Xenophrenic's user page onto my talk page: . Malke 2010 (talk) 16:39, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Casprings is edit warring on my talk page:

Malke 2010 (talk) 16:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I am not "edit waring". I was trying to correctly format a notification of this discussion. As noted, I made a mistake on how I linked user:Xenophrenic name in the title of the notification. I was trying to fix that.Casprings (talk) 16:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Casprings, you had to deliberately go to Xenophrenic's User page, copy that content and then dump it on my talk page. That's vandalisim. Then when I came here and posted a link to it, you went back and removed it. I put it back so the link would make sense, and then you edit warred over it. What is going on here? There is a certified RfC/U on Xenophrenic and you've come here to complain about it? Whatever you think you're doing, please stop doing it on my talk page. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• No you don't. You just have to link a user name with {{, instead of

Which obviously you did in order to vandalize my talk page. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:14, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• Yeah, it isn't like they are on the same key on the keyboard or anything. No way, that could have been a mistake. I was trying to inform you of this discussion, and made a mistake in the title. Thus you got the message. I than went back to fix it. Casprings (talk) 17:18, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

What is this, a duplicate venue? North8000 (talk) 16:55, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea what he's trying to accomplish here. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Whatever's going on, it's disruptive, and I'm getting a dimmer and dimmer view of everyone whom I've seen to be involved. Xenophrenic tried to get the RFCU deleted even though it qualified, Phoenix and Winslow (one user) has been using my words rather...strangely to make it sound as if I supported the RFCU certifiers' statements and has also petitioned for my involvement, and now Casprings is disrupting Malke's talk and duplicating venues without good reason. Nyttend (talk) 17:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

As noted, I made a mistake on the notification. I used {{, instead of

I have no idea what the OP is trying to achieve here, but anything that requires administrator attention is already being dealt with at the ArbCom case. Stop it. Black Kite (talk) 17:54, 27 May 2013 (UTC)}}

I don't think there is consensus to close this. The major point of this is to ask for some input into an WP:RFC/U, which could use some outside eyes. Casprings (talk) 18:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Wow. Can we just discuss whatever's bothering you at the RfC/U Talk page, please? Thanks ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

BLP issue?

Initially, this RfC/U contained little concrete evidence. After advice on presenting evidence was offered by a most experience Wikipedian, the problem was rectified by one of the certifiers . However, I'm concerned that the new evidence contains statements like " is possibly the most hated Democratic member of the House besides ". These are the words of one the certifiers, not of Xenophrenic, with the name of the living persons elided by myself in this copy. My question for the administration is: is this kind of statement normally made in RfC/Us? I admittedly have not read many such RfCs, but this is the first time I see such a statement in one. 5.12.68.204 (talk) 23:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't see that as a problem. I don't know whether it's common in RFCUs, but it's not the kind of thing that's an attack. Remember that this is very different from saying "XX is the worst Democratic member of the House" — unlike that, "most hated" simply talks about other people's opinions of XX. Watch enough TV or listen to enough radio and you'll sometimes even find politicians proclaiming "____ group of people hates me" as evidence that they're doing a good job fighting that group's eeeevil intentions. Nyttend (talk) 01:55, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I've looked at the biographies of the two politicians in question, but I did not see any self-identification of the kind you describe above, nor did I see any polling about the public opinion in this matter. But I accept your finding that it falls within the realm of acceptable speech about public figures on Misplaced Pages. 5.12.68.204 (talk) 05:03, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Another RfC/U participant thought eventually that it was a BLP violation . 5.12.68.204 (talk) 16:20, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't meaning that these politicians self-identified as such; I mean that this is the kind of thing that occasionally gets noised about in various places. I can't give you a specific example. Nyttend (talk) 18:05, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

From WP:BLPTALK: Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices, should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate. Was the removed content contentious? Yes. Was it about a living person? Yes. Was it unsourced or poorly sourced? Yes. Was it not related to making content choices? Yes. Therefore, it should be removed, deleted, or oversighted. Seems like simple logic to me. The fact that it gets "noised about" doesn't make it okay to post onwiki. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 21:22, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

This is why we have a WP:UCS page. Throwing a fit over something like this is absurd and not at all helpful, especially since sourcing isn't applicable on pages like RFCUs. Nyttend (talk) 21:52, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Throwing a fit? I removed a denigrating comment about a living person from a talk page. Seems like perfect common sense to me. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 23:13, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:BLP states: "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Misplaced Pages page" (emphasis original) so it applies to an RFC/U just as much as it does an article. NJ did the right thing. NE Ent 23:39, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

"Was it not related to making content choices? Yes." Well, I wouldn't be too sure about that. The certifier who wrote his opinion about those two politicians was trying to convince us that those politicians needed to be put in a harsher light. The certifier was doing this in order to prove that the editor subject of the RfC/U was basically whitewashing articles of Democratic politicians. So it was reasonably related to a discussion about content choices, not a random rant. 5.12.68.204 (talk) 03:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Idiomatic copyright

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

Hello!

Today, a few minutes ago, I was about to add an additional source relating to a forthcoming article that I was about to publish on en.wp, but I just noticed that the full article in French, which was originally created and published on fr.wp on April 2011, has been subsequently (i.e. more than two years later) translated in English → see here, which is nice, except that the said subsequent translation does not contain any mention about the original source in French which is based on fr.wp.

The good thing is that the translation’s work is done, but the forthcoming problem might be now that the inclusion of an English version on en.wp, which would be based on the aforesaid original fr.wp article, might strangely be considered as a potential alleged copyright violation (and, consecutively, induce an speedy deletion), mainly because of the fact that the first fr.wp credits are not mentioned on the aforesaid translation, even though the said English translation was done much longer after the creation of the first article on fr.wp.

It is a bit an odd situation.

How could we solve this unexpected issue?

Thank you for your help!

Kindest regards!

euphonie
08:48, 08:54, 08:58, 11:34, 11:46 28 May 2013 (UTC)

The translation you link to is a very poor one -- probably a machine translation. There's no point using it on en.wiki in any case. It would be fine to make a new translation for the en.wiki, putting a {{Translated page}} tag on the new translation's talk page. That would not be copyvio. --Stfg (talk) 09:47, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your answer! Would this new translation →‎ here (nota bene: this is a fragmentary and unachieved work) be a bit more “suitable”? Or is this preliminary result still much too “stodgy”? Kindest regards! — euphonie 11:12, 11:14, 13:36, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

(ec)No problem. Now that the copyright question is answered, administrator assistance is not needed, so I think we should close the discussion here. You are welcome to visit my talk page if you would like further help. Regards, --Stfg (talk) 13:18, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

OK! Thank you! Kind regards to you, too! — euphonie 13:38, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Backlog at Category:Rescaled fairuse files

Images at Category:Rescaled fairuse files do not seem to be moving automatically into Category:Rescaled fairuse files more than 7 days old. I null edited {{non-free reduced}}, but they still didn't appear. I then null edited individual files in Category:Rescaled fairuse files so that they did appear in Category:Rescaled fairuse files more than 7 days old, but I haven't gone through them all.

Take care to make sure that the resizing is appropriate - it sometimes isn't given that we've outsourced low resolution decisions to a bot, even though it's incapable of judging subjects on anything other that a magic number. There are also some tagged images which might be ineligible for copyright, such as text-logos. - hahnchen 13:14, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Request for re-visitation of the topic ban of User:TheShadowCrow

After some discussion with TheShadowCrow on my talk page, I would like to request a partial lift on his topic ban related to creating BLP and Armenia(n) related articles. Despite an initial BATTLEGROUND start to that discussion, I believe that this user has come to a realization that no-one is "out to get them" or holding any grudges against them. I believe that at this point, something similar to the article creation restriction of User:Doncram by arbitration process, which states: "He may create new content pages in his user space, at Articles for Creation, in a sandbox area within a WikiProject's area, or in similar areas outside of article space. Such pages may only be moved to article space by other users after review." I believe that a one month or twenty-five new approved article threshold would be reasonable to demonstrate this user's intention to contribute to Misplaced Pages in a positive manner and awareness of identifying reliable sources for use on the biographies of living persons that have some verifiability. I think that this would make a reasonable prerequisite for an overall lifting of his topic ban in demonstrating good faith to properly edit existing articles on the topics. Thank you for your time and consideration. Technical 13 (talk) 18:42, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Isn't this the second or third request of this nature is a very short span of time? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:56, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

This is my first request on this users behalf after his second previous request on his own behalf requesting a full revocation of the ban of which he withdrew. This request, I would like to emphasize, is a request for a partial lift to facilitate reviewed new article creations offering him an opportunity To prove his claims of having learnt his lesson. Due to a technological restriction, I am unable to post links to the orginial discussion and previous requests for revocation for his ban, but would be happy to do so in the morning. Thank you again. Technical 13 (talk) 01:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe not an issue, but I notice the user has already made Armenia related edits to his sandbox: , . This would be technically in breach of: "edits related to Armenia or biographies of living persons, both broadly construed". Now I don't think that would merit any sort of sanction, but it might be premature and indicative of continued impatience, along with the multiple appeals, and postings to user talk pages such as User talk:Dennis Brown pushing for support in his appeal: , etc.

That said, I'd actually support a relaxation of the topic ban to allow him to work, initially, on a single article at a time in his sandbox - which would need to be reviewed by an editor with good BLP experience before being moved to mainspace. He'd need to find someone willing to do those reviews. If that works out, then the restrictions could be gradually relaxed. If it doesn't, then the original terms are easily reinstated. I don't like the AFC idea at all - AFC reviewers shouldn't be expected to do what could essentially amount to mentoring a topic-banned editor. Begoon  07:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

That's a good proposal. Support. NE Ent

That seems to be a reasonable counter-proposal. As a reviewer at AfC, I would be happy to ask around and see if there is anyone that has good BLP experience and see if they would be willing to take this user under their wing and mentor them. Technical 13 (talk) 13:27, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Update: I've made requests at Misplaced Pages talk:Adopt-a-user#Requesting an adopter that is... and Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#Requesting a reviewer that is... as promised. Technical 13 (talk) 13:38, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, quite frankly that reduces my support somewhat. Did you not notice the multiple uses of the word "premature" in this section? That should have been a hint. Editors worried that this was being pushed too hard and too fast will hardly be reassured to see you attempting to make arrangements for something that only one editor supports, and 2 admins have opposed, in an unfinished discussion. I know you're trying to help, but that doesn't, imo. Begoon  14:05, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Are you kidding me? This was withdrawn as way too premature, not because you offered to have a chat. There cannot be relaxation of the TB this soon, seeing as he wholly misunderstood what the topic ban actually meant. Bringing this up now risks a topic ban against requesting relaxation of their topic ban - bad idea (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:31, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose as per my thinking at the last discussion from a few days ago - too soon. Wait for the full 3 months and then we will re-visit. GiantSnowman 12:37, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• It's hard to see how editing in a sandbox would be disruptive. I can see the reasoning behind wanting a three month break but the editor may lose interest altogether than then we've lost an editor (we have a shortage of those). NE Ent 12:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

  (Non-administrator comment) I've seen a lot of editors being pushed away unreasonably recently, and based on my readings of previous incidents that seems to be the way it has always been. This is sad that there are people that want to help and improve Misplaced Pages as a whole, but may be a little misguided in doing so and for that receive excessive blocks or bans from Misplaced Pages. Now, I realize that there are a lot of stupid bots and people that intend to do harm, but honestly, I rarely see any of those formally attempting to follow protocol and come to ANI or any other venue to request reconsideration. Most of the bots and those wishing to do harm to the project don't bother, they simply create a new spa or make their atrocious edits anonymously. Now, Misplaced Pages has many venues to help new editors, Help desk, Teahouse/Questions, Adopt a user program, AFC, and the list goes on, but there seems to be a broken link in getting the people that are having troubles and are here in ANI to these programs and help areas. Instead, there seems to be a let's block them for half a year and maybe they will be more mature and absorb all of our guidelines in the meantime even though they don't have the opportunity to practice any of the things they are suppose to be learning. I see lots of flaws in this, and hope that there can be a way to discuss this out and come up with a better "rehabilitation" program of sorts to get people hooked up with the right resources to help them make better edits on Misplaced Pages. Technical 13 (talk) 13:27, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

As promised last night, the links to the previous discussions are: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive792#Continued editing of BLP articles without reliable sources by User:TheShadowCrow → Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive248#Please remove my ban. → Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive249#Ban_appeal

Thanks extension

Hey all. As described on this dedicated page, we've built a system to thank editors for individual edits. As I'm sure you're all aware, it's relatively trivial to deal with bad contributions (undo and rollback are your friend!) but we don't really have any way in MediaWiki to encourage editors who have made good edits. We can send out barnstars, sure, but barnstars are justifiably Kind Of A Big Deal - they're for really substantial contributions or a large number of small ones. There's nothing to thank people for individually helpful, gnome-ish edits except dropping a personal note - which is quite a lot of effort to do every time someone corrects a typo.

The Thanks extension solves for this; with it, you can send an editor a notification about the value of their edit with a couple of button-clicks. If you're not a fan, there will be preference options to turn off (respectively) receiving thanks, and seeing the interface elements of the extension at all. You can read more here :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 19:52, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• Could you drop this message off at WT:WER as well? And thank you, this is an interesting idea. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ / Join WER 19:56, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

  Thanks for the good idea! Doing so now :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• GiantSnowman 20:00, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks! --j⚛e decker 00:21, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
• I like the idea, but shouldn't this go on Village Pump rather than here? wctaiwan (talk) 10:42, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Attribution for offensive text that was oversighted but screencapped by subject

Normally when an article is vandalized with horrible things about a BLP, it is oversighted and not mentioned again. In the case of Anita Sarkeesian, she took a screen capture of it (http://www.feministfrequency.com/2012/06/harassment-and-misogyny-via-wikipedia/), and allowed it to be published in Wired Magazine (http://www.wired.com/underwire/2012/06/anita-sarkeesian-feminist-games/). Since it is technically free and since it illustrates the topic (where the vandalism of Misplaced Pages itself is a topic of discussion), I've included it in the article (File:Anita Sarkeesian - Misplaced Pages Harassment.png). The problem is, how do I give attribution to edits that are currently oversighted revision-deleted but featured in that image? ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 22:51, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• Just for accuracy's sake, though it doesn't make much difference to the question at hand: the edits in question were revision deleted, not oversighted. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, thanks. I always conflate the two as they amount to the same thing for a non-admin. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 01:26, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
• Ugh. It appears that a BLP includes a section on how the article was vandalized, with a screenshot showing what a terrific job the vandals did. I can see that a case could made to justify this extreme violation of WP:DENY, but I find it worrying. The fact that the subject has attracted vile abuse may have some encyclopedic value, but I don't see why Misplaced Pages should cooperate in that endeavor. Perhaps the section should be heavily trimmed (no illustration), with just a mention of what two reliable secondary sources have written? Johnuniq (talk) 10:53, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Um, just remember that WP:DENY is an essay: we cannot "violate" it as if it were a project policy or guideline. Nyttend (talk) 12:17, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Anonymous209.6 edit waring on Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012

User:Anonymous209.6 is currently edit waring on Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012. His edits are going against consensus on the talk page, which he has been involved in. I would ask some aid in returning User:Anonymous209.6 to the talk page and gaining consensus on what are continuos changes.Casprings (talk) 03:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

King quote (actually the quote is accurate, it is the made-up-question that he wasn't asked that is the problem, as discussed on Talk) WP:BLP problem has been discussed at length, never addressed by Casprings. King used to have a section that violated WP:BLP and was tagged WP:POV, with justification. Casprings issued threats on UserTalk, filed frivolous WP:ANI that went away. Tag agreed to by consensus, consensus for REMOVAL. Casprings INSTEAD moved whole problem section to where it made no sense (support for Akin as a person, OK, rest, NO). Much discussed on Talk. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 04:25, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Relavent talk page sections are here and here. The changes made were an attempt to address the issues of all editors. There is certainly no consensus to remove the material.Casprings (talk) 04:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

This sentence, which Casprings continues to push, ..he stated that pregnancy from rape was "something God intended". is contentious. Taking a partial quote anytime is problematic, but to take the persons word's out of context at the same time is a BLP violation. This article has several problems, and this is simply a good example of the general problems with this article. And to think that Casprings thinks that this is deserving of FA status is even more problematic. Arzel (talk) 05:31, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• This is a reference to the title of one of the sections. This has already been discussed some time ago, here. This topic is not the subject of the current dispute.Casprings (talk) 11:23, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I am talking specifically about the sentence not your misuse of selective quoting in the section heading. Why do you feel the need to push a selective quote when the full quote is available? Arzel (talk) 14:08, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Legal threat

Can an IP be blocked for a legal threat? Not that I think it's a very serious one, and probably the author of the deleted page Talk:Korosh Kushzad anyway, but I'm just curious, never having come across one before. Peridon (talk) 11:14, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Of course they can - just for shorter times (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:29, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Personal attacks by User:Thenightchicagodied needing immediate attention

Hello administrators! I'm not entirely sure which noticeboard this belongs on, but felt it was something that needed to be addressed and dealt with. I issued this warning on this user's talk page for the reversion I did of his edit to the talk page of TheOriginalSoni. I then decided to check out the history of Thenightchicagodied's talk page and found this warning from TOS that seems to be what had prompted the post on TOS's talk page. Since I have started writing this report, Thenightchicagodied has reverted my warning (apparently accusing me of being an SPA of TOS), left this on TOS's talk page, also been warned by DVdm, removed that warning, and is being extremely vulgar and BATTLEGROUND style WP:PA in their edit summaries... I'm sure they are causing more disruption, but I'm choosing to submit at this point and let an admin deal with it. Technical 13 (talk) 14:21, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) As a matter of policy, it's worth noting that you are allowed to remove warnings from your own talkpage. No comment on the other stuff; I'll leave that for some admin to sort out. — PinkAmpers& 14:29, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• Final warning issued here for personal attacks and uncivil behaviour. GiantSnowman 14:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Administrative backlog