Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:38, 11 June 2014

• 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 30 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 28 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 97 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 77 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)

would like to see what close is. seems like it was option 1 in general, possibly 1/2 for IP area. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 05:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 67 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 59 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 51 days ago on 22 November 2024) Legobot has removed the RFC notice. Can we please get an interdependent close. TarnishedPath 23:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Talk:Wicked (2024 film)#RfC on whether credited name or common name should be used

(Initiated 33 days ago on 11 December 2024) Participation mostly slowed, should have an independent close. Happily888 (talk) 10:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

 Done @Happily888: guninvalid (talk) 14:24, 13 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 24 days ago on 20 December 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 31#Category:Disambig-Class Star Trek pages

(Initiated 12 days ago on 31 December 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 1#Category:Category-Class 20th Century Studios pages of NA-importance

(Initiated 12 days ago on 1 January 2025) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:50, 10 January 2025 (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 110 days ago on 25 September 2024) Open for a while, requesting uninvolved closure. Andre🚐 22:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Winter fuel payment abolition backlash#Merge proposal

(Initiated 76 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 67 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:You Like It Darker#Proposed merge of Finn (short story) into You Like It Darker

(Initiated 16 days ago on 27 December 2024) Proposed merge discussion originally opened on 30 May 2024, closed on 27 October 2024, and reopened on 27 December 2024 following the closure being overturned at AN. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

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

CFD backlog

Hi. There's currently a backlog at WP:CFD with some discussions still open from 10 April. Please could someone take a look? Thanks. Lugnuts 07:39, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

• Reply - You may wish to list this at WP:ANFRC if you have not already done so. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:23, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

That has a backlog too! Lugnuts 08:51, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Added. Lugnuts 08:50, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

And a powertrip admin reverted it with no reason why! Lugnuts 13:24, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

First, that isn't an admin who reverted it, and he certainly isn't on a powertrip. Second, requests at WP:ANRFC are for specific open requests, not entire backlogs. I would recommend listing some of the older open requests there first, and add more later if necessary. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 13:42, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I stand corrected that they are not an admin. Lugnuts 07:08, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Two month backlog today. Go Team Chocolate Fireguards! Lugnuts 06:52, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Admin removing content

I am reporting a disagreement with Nikkimaria who has done something rather strange. We have the File:Flag of Winnipeg.svg and File:Crest of Winnipeg.svg hosted on Commons in the SVG format. However this admin has uploaded PNG copies of these two images (File:Flag of Winnipeg.png & File:Crest of Winnipeg.png) at greatly reduced resolution and under non-free licenses. They have also repeatedly replaced the Commons SVGs with these PNG copies on 3 articles ("Winnipeg", "Flag of Winnipeg" and "Coat of arms of Winnipeg"). In each removal, they only cite "licensing problems". I have initiated a discussion on their talk page trying to understand their reasoning. I have attempted to explain that the images hosted on Commons both have licenses and that they have already been under DR process and it was determined that the licenses were valid. I also asked if this admin doubts the validity of those licenses, why they wouldn't go to Commons and nominate them for a second time. Instead of addressing this, they simply say there is no requirement to use Commons files (something I did not state or infer) and that the Commons files do not meet Misplaced Pages's standards. It should be noted again that except for the difference in SVG and PNG format both versions are the same thing. This admin speaks nebulously and refuses to address any of my questions. I believe they are improperly altering content without any benefit or positive end. Because of their status as an administrator, I require greater attention and possible intervention in this matter. Fry1989 03:25, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Nikki's comment that the images in question have obviously false licensing details on Commons is entirely correct (the uploaders falsely claimed to be the copyright holders). As such, she's also entirely correct to remove them from being used here: we try to avoid using images under a copyright cloud at Commons, or where this can be reasonably be expected to be the case. Rather than attempting to understand Nikki's reasoning as you claim, you have actually been ignoring her responses and hectoring her. Nick-D (talk) 03:35, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

As I have explained several times now, the images underwent the DR process and it was determined they are not copyright violations. Commons has the exact same copyright concerns as Misplaced Pages, if not stricter ones considering copyrighted material can not be hosted there. As these images are on Commons and were determined to be acceptable, there is no perceivable reason why they should not be used on Misplaced Pages. This is not a simple answer of somebody uploading images on Commons under false claims, they have already faced scrutiny on that basis. Fry1989 03:38, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

What you are suggesting is that any admin can unilaterally remove Commons images from Misplaced Pages based on their own personal opinions on the licensing status, ignoring any other information such as that provided in DRs or other discussions, and use their administrator status to forcefully exclude these images. That makes no sense. If you believe these images are copyright violations, there are channels to go through, both Commons and Misplaced Pages have DR processes for images under a variety of grounds, users do not unilaterally get to decide "it is a violation and I will not allow it to be used". Fry1989 03:43, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, abusing me as well is really going to help your cause. You were the only person to think that the images are clearly OK in the deletion nomination, and did not respond to Nikki's request for evidence to support your argument (instead you posted charming stuff like this abuse). The other editor who commented there was focused only on the criteria which applied and did not comment on whether the images in question met them or not. That the DR was closed as 'keep' says more about the lack of activity in Commons' processes and the judgement of some of its admins than anything else, and it seems entirely sensible to not use these images on Misplaced Pages. It's also unclear to me why this matter is on this board: Nikki has not been using her admin tools, and this is a disagreement over copyright matters. Nick-D (talk) 03:52, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

And falsely calling something abuse when it is not helps nothing either. I asked a question about why we shouldn't use these images from Commons and it was not directly answered, instead I get a completely different tangent about "we have no requirement to" and "they don't meet our standards" which could mean anything from quality to accuracy to sources to yes their licensing. And why is this on this noticeboard? Because discussing it on the article talk pages would do nothing, I attempted discussing it on the user talk page and got cryptic responses, it was not edit warring, it was not vandalism, so I don't know anywhere else I could raise this matter to the attention of others than here. Fry1989 03:58, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

This truly is the most ridiculous thing I've seen in a while. An admin unilaterally decides that Commons files are "not acceptable", I ask for clarification on why, and when I describe the response I receive as either indirect or cloudy, I get accused of personal attacks, and I also get accused of abusing someone for stating the fact that we do have normal channels and processes for matters like this, instead of unilateral decisions. Yes, I'm the terrible one, I'm the abusive one. What a waste of time trying to find a resolution with those not interested, and then to be mocked for "not coming to the right page" when I don't know anywhere else I could have brought this to. Fry1989 04:10, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

To be polite, I would not trust commons deletion discussions as far as I can throw the participants. The licensing issues with those images on commons are too sketchy to trust, after a quick look I agree with Nick-D's comments above. As for actions by Nikkimara here - we are under no obligation to use images from commons just because 'commons' has decided there are no problems. Commons is a project that has numerous issues in its processes, and when we have a perfectly acceptable (and copyright safe) alternative, it would be better to use it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:25, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Absent the licencing question, the SVG versions are clearly superior, but it's not unreasonable to temporarily replace them while the discussion is in process. It may be the case, for instance, that the person who uploaded to Commons has simply used the wrong tag, or wants to indicate that they are releasing their particular impression of the logo into the PD, or any one of a dozen or so other plausible explanations that don't involve copyright infringement. But, we need to wait for Commons to make up its mind on that. Lankiveil 01:33, 9 June 2014 (UTC).

Also, I know this happened on Commons and not here, but it's a good thing not to make comments like this and keep the moral high ground if possible. Lankiveil 01:35, 9 June 2014 (UTC).

The OP posted a comment at Nikkimaria's talk page that a discussion was taking place at A noticeboard, but didn't say which noticeboard. She may very well have looked at WP:ANI and not found anything relevant. I have notified her. When discussing an editor's or an administrator's conduct at this noticeboard, please use the appropriate notice. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:18, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

We have no obligation to use images from Commons, especially if there are concerns over the copyright status of such images. I don't see anything wrong with Nikki's actions - she replaced the potential copyright violation with fair use images prior to discussion close - it is common practice to remove potential copyvios from articles. It is at her discretion whether the images should be reinstated after Commons closed the discussion as keep, as we are not necessarily bound by the consensus on that project. If you disagree, follow the relevant process at WP:NFCR. This should not be at AN. —Dark 17:54, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Fry1989 said: "Commons has the exact same copyright concerns as Misplaced Pages, if not stricter ones considering copyrighted material can not be hosted there." — That's news to me. I seem to have uploaded a number of images that I own the copyright of to Commons. That they are licensed under the CC BY-SA or BY license does not mean that they are somehow not copyrighted—you are just free to use them under the terms of the license. When people say things like this, it makes others wary of trusting them when it comes to correctly handling copyright. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Double bottom line

Earlier today HamiltonFromAbove moved this page from mainspace to the Misplaced Pages Talk space (probably in error) with an edit summary indicating that "double bottom line" is a proper name and should be capitalized. It is not a proper name, it is a financial concept in the same way that time value of money or double entry bookkeeping are concepts. Every article we have that refers to it has the words in lowercase, as well as the pointers to triple bottom line which is a related concept. According to the site dialogs I can't undo the page move myself; requesting admin assistance. Ivanvector (talk) 05:34, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Done. Not sure why you couldn't have done it yourself; seems like a standard move over a redirect to me. Perhaps it was because of the namespace change. Graham87 06:12, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages editing ought to offered as a one-year, post-graduate program at colleges and university's: maybe as a part of language study's. Misplaced Pages tutorials, and efforts to help newbies to become productive editor are just not organized enough or presented in a digestible form. HamiltonFromAbove (talk) 09:03, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't need a full year for just editing, but if we include all the maintenance aspects. it did take me about a year of almost full time attention to be any good at it, and there's still half of it I would need another year for. DGG ( talk ) 21:44, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that was a shot at me (let's say not) but I can assure you I know how to move pages, and the software did not let me do this one. I don't know why, I'm not a coder, but the change in namespace seems like a good reason to me. Anyway, thanks. Ivanvector (talk) 21:47, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Automatic detection of inappropriate-looking new usernames has again stopped.

• Page Misplaced Pages:Usernames for administrator attention/Bot has not been edited since 21:27, 20 March 2014. User:DeltaQuadBot, which is supposed to keep it updated, has done nothing since 15:10, 17 March 2014 (see Special:Contributions/DeltaQuadBot), except many edits to User:DeltaQuad/UAA/Wait (see Special:DeletedContributions/DeltaQuadBot). (User:Elfix deleted User:DeltaQuad/UAA/Wait on 16:36, 11 July 2012.) What is happening? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:01, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I always thought username patrol was rather pointless considering how many accounts never actually edit. That being said, I would speak to the bot's owner regarding the issue. -- John Reaves 14:01, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Indeed usernames who have never edited should not be reported, by bot or otherwise. –xeno 14:16, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
      • So then, if the bot has not operated in months, and there may be no consensus to block unused usernames, and filters are able to blacklist certain strings, therefore it follows that the bot-reported section at UAA may be no longer needed? I'd take this to WT:UAA and see what comes of it (RfC? or maybe just be bold?). Rgrds. --64.85.216.181 (talk) 16:19, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Piguy101 and WP:DRC

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

Piguy101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has restored a warning message onto my talk page using Twinkle (a semi-automated tool), denied knowing about the essay and claimed no guideline prevented him from doing this wrongful revert. 85.210.177.155 (talk) 16:28, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Whoa, this is way out of context. I restored a warning once, and have not restored it again. Sysops: Please take a look at User talk:85.210.177.155 and my talkpage history before making any actions. Thanks Piguy101 (talk) 16:32, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Indeed; I'm not really sure what the issue is here; this IP was warned for vandalizing Arrows in the Dark and now has an issue with the removal of one of the warnings given to them for that vandalism. To me it just seems an excuse to continue their same behavior. 331dot (talk) 16:35, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Consider this retracted. 85.210.177.155 (talk) 16:41, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Consider yourself blocked. Nick (talk) 16:45, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Maybe consider talk page removal. --64.85.216.181 (talk) 16:58, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Unblock request discussion for User:Russavia

Russavia has requested that his indefinite block be lifted. His request is being discussed on ANI in this thread. Someone raised the question whether this unblock discussion should be taking place here on AN rather than on ANI. I believe it is too late to relocate the entire discussion from one noticeboard to another, nor does it make a lot of difference on which board the discussion take place. However, I am cross-posting here so anyone interested will be aware of the ANI discussion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:59, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Youtube links in article on opera singer

The article Cheryl Studer, about an opera singer, has many links to youtube videos. The text of the article says twice "you can see her sing this in the youtube video linked to" and the sections and have many many links to youtube videos,I believe this article is maintained by a fan who has in fact linked to every youtube video with her in it (and a site I have never heard of before, "Dailymotion"). There is even a youtube link to a video of her daughter, a pop singer. I am sure some or all of these must be copyright violations, I tried to take some of them out (I didn't even notice them all the first time) but they were immediately restored. Probably this is not the place to raise this concern but I don't know where that would be. I looked at Misplaced Pages:Copyright problems and Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions but they both have page long instructions, procedures, do this, do that if "x" or "y" if that, I don't feel like trying to figure it all out. Could someone tell me the best place to raise this concern, or tell me that it is nothing to worry about and I should forget it. Thanks Smeat75 (talk) 13:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC).

Dailymotion is another one of those streaming sites that jumped on the bandwagon not long after YouTube became popular. It's a lot less discriminatory in the types of things that appear on it. Blackmane (talk) 14:02, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

See Dailymotion. I've never heard of it before, either. Let me look at the article and come back with an opinion. Nyttend (talk) 21:49, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Never mind; Diannaa already did the hard work. Nyttend (talk) 21:55, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Diannaa's changes were reverted, I reverted back to the improved version but was promptly undone. There appear to be WP:OWN issues here. hbent (talk) 15:05, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Goustaff is edit-warring the changes several of us have made to the article over the last few days, not just about youtube links but WP:PEACOCK terms and the way this article is written like a fan page (and the user is even repeatedly removing content from the talk page).Smeat75 (talk) 15:37, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Goustaff has been warned multiple times at his talk page, and he's been told of this discussion. We're past the point of assuming good faith, and I'll readily block if (before any other admins come along) I learn that he's again reverted the cleanup. Nyttend (talk) 21:27, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Editathon

Tomorrow, Thursday 12 June, I'm going to be running an editathon in conjunction with Barclays Bank:

• Misplaced Pages:Barclays edit-a-thon

Around 350 Barclays staff will be editing Misplaced Pages - some for the first time - throughout the day from several different locations including Singapore, India, Lithuania, England and the US. They will all be logged in, but some may not be autoconfirmed yet and may not know their way around the Wiki. I'd be grateful if due courtesy could be extended to these new editors, please.

The last time I ran an editathon, one of the members of the Royal Society of Chemistry was blocked during the session for "suspicious activity", i.e. several new editors were creating similar user pages under my direction. I'd really prefer this not to happen again, so I'm posting here to notify admins of what is happening. As an aside to checkusers: many of the new editors will make edits originating from a very limited range of IP addresses (the proxies that Barclays uses for its outward-facing connections to the internet), so please consider the possibility of a Barclays editor, should you receive a report of multiple new editors that you can see are using the same (closed) proxy.

Thanks in advance. --RexxS (talk) 18:40, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Could you maybe add a notice to user pages/talk pages? GiantSnowman 19:01, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

That's important. They should not be allowed to edit any articles connected to the financial crisis of the 2000s considering their COI. 166.137.8.78 (talk) 20:00, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't support fully the last statement above, because many of them might have quicker access to reliable academic and professional sources than the rest of us do, but it might be preferable if they were, individually or collectively, decide to edit content related to it, that they do so on a userspace page which could then be looked over by an independent party for review and possible changes. John Carter (talk) 20:10, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

• I'm confused about why we're running an edit-a-thon at/for a business. I mean, I guess there's no reason why we can't, but it brings up a whole host of COI/neutrality issues that are going to need to be addressed before anyone at the event puts finger to keyboard - issues that are not typically a thing at other edit-a-thons at, say, libraries. The edit-a-thon page doesn't say anything about why Barclay's, in particular, or about what training the participants are going to get, so it's hard to promise RexxS anything about how participants will be handled onwiki while we don't know how they're going to *behave* onwiki. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:15, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Request for topic ban lift

I was topic banned at Ta-Nehisi Coates ]. The reason given was because I was a SPA.

I believe this came about through misconduct: the main opposing editor, NorthBySouthBaranof, repeatedly made false charges against me on noticeboards, which created a false sense of “where there’s smoke, there must be fire.” The resulting “Too long, didn’t read” mess meant that uninvolved editors who watch noticeboards tended to blame me for the whole thing. I think this was an abuse of process simply to win an edit conflict.

Please see these edits: here ] he admits there’s no consensus, and even suggests ] a noncontroversial version to revert back to while we work out consensus, but then 14 minutes later, in his very next post, he tried to have me topic banned ] at ANI due to the discussion being “beaten to death”. It is very difficult to counter the argument of someone who is willing to lie about discussion like that on ANI. He previously made similar false statements about consensus in an earlier post at the BLP noticeboard as well ].

That ban request died a deserved death, but it was revived by another opposing editor with the same motive. There had been splits over consensus of 2-1 and 3-3, so that’s why I started an RfC, which I promised to abide by, so the situation was working itself out. I also explained I wasn’t an SPA, just a low-volume editor. Here are my previous usernames: Fallsdowne (talk · contribs); Wyngarde (talk · contribs); Hypotheticalcolors (talk · contribs); Dojoarigato (talk · contribs); plus one more which I'd like to keep private, that made one edit of 30,000 characters.

Unfortunately, I was topic-banned instead. I am asking my topic ban be lifted, and NorthBySouthBaranof be given sanctions for abusing process by making false statements about others on ANI to win an edit conflict. Useitorloseit (talk) 21:03, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Disclaimer: I'm not an admin. Though while I'm still assessing, I have a curiosity; why did you create those accounts and not stick to just one? I'm not trying to create animosity or derail from the topic ban removal request, just wondering. Tutelary (talk) 21:00, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

No problem, it's a fair question. I make one edit, then don't edit again for a year or more, so I forgot the passwords. Plus I don't like any of those usernames - I just made them up for the one edit. Useitorloseit (talk) 21:03, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Here is the finalized topic ban (from a week ago) so that people can make up their own minds instead of being told what to believe. Also, it hasn't even been a week since the previous (and similar) unban request (not quite a week ago) was closed for lacking convincing arguments. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:10, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The user above shows signs of WP:HARASS, by following me around and warning others ] not to support me. Useitorloseit (talk) 21:18, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

For adding pertinent details that you overlooked? They haven't edited the page in question or commented on the talk page. No way that could possibly fall under WP:HARASS unless you construe it as meaning anyone who posts something contrary to your view is harassment. Ravensfire (talk) 21:26, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I included a link to the topic ban discussion. And I said "signs of". Useitorloseit (talk) 21:38, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose You were topic-banned a week ago from one subject. Go and edit other stuff (which you haven't during this week) instead of obsessing over this one area. --NeilN 21:28, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

In April this user reverted the page in question, against the consensus of 2-1, in favor of NorthBySouthBaranof. Last week he inaccurately accused me of breaking a rule about soliciting comments ]. Useitorloseit (talk) 21:38, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Administrative backlog