Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:27, 13 November 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 28 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 26 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 95 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 75 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 65 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 57 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 49 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 34 days ago on 7 December 2024) slowed for a while Bluethricecreamman (talk) 06:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

 Done Seraphimblade 10:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 31 days ago on 11 December 2024) Participation mostly slowed, should have an independent close. Happily888 (talk) 10:14, 10 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 22 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 10 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 10 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 108 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 74 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 65 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 45 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)

Talk:You Like It Darker#Proposed merge of Finn (short story) into You Like It Darker

(Initiated 14 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

Nigger of the Narcissus

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

Please create a redirect from this page to The Nigger of the 'Narcissus'.

This is pursuant to

Permission error

You do not have permission to create this discussion page, for the following reason: The page title or edit you have tried to create has been restricted to administrators at this time. It matches an entry on the local or global blacklists, which is usually used to prevent vandalism.

If you receive this message when trying to edit, create or move an existing page, follow these instructions:

• Any administrator can create or move this page for you. Please post a request at the Administrators' noticeboard
• You may also contact any administrator on their talk page or by email.
• Be sure to specify the exact title (especially by linking it) of the page you are trying to create or edit, and if it might be misunderstood (for example, an article with an unusual name), consider explaining briefly what you want to do.
• If you wrote any text, save it temporarily on your computer until you can edit the page.

Thank you.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:37, 7 November 2014 (UTC).

 Done Mfield (Oi!) 17:49, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

RFC close review Talk:2014 Iranian-led intervention in Iraq#Iran, Hezbollah Reaction to American-led intervention in Iraq

I've discussed this with the closer on their talk page. I question if this is a reasonable summation of the consensus as it is not a reasonable clear determination. The support for the inclusion seems to be based on the poll. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:31, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Timestamp to prevent premature archiving. Cunard (talk) 03:17, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Article taken from sandbox

Without sounding overly dramatic, what is the process when somebody steals an article from your sandbox? I'm talking about Jack Harper (footballer) which has been entirely lifted (via C&P) by Meeneunos10 (talk · contribs) from User:GiantSnowman/Jack Harper. GiantSnowman 16:53, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

It's still in your sandbox. The other fellow merely copied what you had & beat you to creating the article. GoodDay (talk) 16:56, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

And in the process, 'merely' omitted to note the source, thereby violating copyright. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:59, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Precisely my issue, Andy. GiantSnowman 17:43, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

A histmerge should be performed. I've tagged the article. --NeilN 17:09, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I have merged the histories of these two pages but I would like to hear GiantSnowman's opinion. You must have had a reason to keep the draft in your sandbox without publishing it, so maybe it should be moved back? De728631 (talk) 17:38, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

It remained in my sandbox because he is not (yet, in my opinion) notable... GiantSnowman 17:43, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll be surprised if he replies. In all his edits he's only posted once to a talk page. I'm not fond of non-communicative editors. Dougweller (talk) 17:52, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Neither am I, and I don't approve of copying content from other people's user space without asking for permission. As to notability, I'd say Jack Harper is borderline notable given that he's been covered by multiple reliable sources. But I wouldn't mind an AfD either. De728631 (talk) 18:33, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Could WP:CSD#G7 apply here? GiantSnowman 18:47, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Why not just move it back to your sandbox and delete the redirect? Number 57 18:53, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm a bit flummoxed by this, so for clarification - Has this guy just nicked a draft article from Mr. Snowman and passed it off as his own? Are there no policies about this sort of thing? Can't we give him a good slapping behind the bike sheds? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 18:57, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

It was copyvio. I've been bold and moved it back (and fixed the categories so they show but don't add the article to the categories). Hope I haven't upset anyone but I think that's the best solution. Dougweller (talk) 19:29, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

No, that's what I thought should be done, but I wasn't sure (hence why I raised it here - and when it happened previously, with a different user, we went through AFD). GiantSnowman 20:21, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

NeilN left a good msg to him, I've upped that ante, so they should get the message. Dennis - 2¢ 20:23, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Good job, Doug. I think this is the best solution. But just like GiantSnowman I was thinking along the lines of an AfD. The latter should then preferably have resulted in a move back to user space. But if we can spare some bureaucratic act then that's all the better. De728631 (talk) 08:43, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

More generally, if editor A writes a drat in their sandbox, and editor B thinks it is ready to be an article, or that they can contribute to it, editor B is perfectly entitled to move it to user space, or to draft space, or to edit it further. Nobody owns an article. All contributions to WP in any space are irrevocable ,and anyone may use it for any purpose, including the creation of a wikipedia article. sandboxes and draft space are there for protection of incomplete articles against deletion, not to create a private space.

Attribution is of course necessary, and is best provided by moving the page. We routinely move drafts from user space to draft space (formerly, to AfC). I have a number of times moved user sandboxes or unsubmitted drafts to article space if I think they are ready, but the user is not working on them. (It is ofcourse courteous to inform the user if the user is still active)

If the move is by copypaste, the attribution can easily be provided inseveral ways ; a history merge is preferred from a sandbox, because the earlier material might be deleted. DGG ( talk ) 09:02, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, this is correct... but I think there ought to be a behavioral standard that calls for at least a user talk message prior to moving a draft someone's written entirely themselves to mainspace. Sometimes editors sit on drafts for awhile, for instance because of sourcing concerns, and may even start working on something else (while this has happened to me, I'm not complaining about any specific instance since I'm ultimately fine with the choice of the editor who made the pagemove). I just think that, particularly where the creator is active, and the draft isn't so old as to be G13-eligible, the creator's input (though not necessarily permission) should be sought before moving it out of userspace. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 11:19, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I stumbled on this thread, excuse the intrusion. Unfortunately the discussion has taken my rather irrational but troubling article creation phobia to a whole new level. It was my understanding that a sandbox was a private user space, a workshop, a garage, where one could create and tinker in peace on work. Editors may not "own" articles but individual editors create the article concept. That is an individual, not a collegiate process. So one could one be working on an article, have the cites, pics, text 90% ready, and then it is taken? How does this explain the scores of "Articles I have created" lists on the talkpages of some of our most prolific content-creators?. There does appear to be an original conceptual "ownership", until an article is released onto mainspace, where it does indeed become common intellectual property, to be worked on by all. I find this concept mildly disturbing. Irondome (talk) 13:20, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

@Irondome: is that a thinly veiled accusation of OWNership aimed at myself? GiantSnowman 13:40, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

No. Irondome (talk) 13:48, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I quote the intro to WP:OWN — Even though editors can never "own" an article, it is important to respect the work and ideas of your fellow contributors. Yes, you have the legal right to copy someone's sandbox into mainspace, but you absolutely must attribute it, and if you don't (e.g. this situation), you've committed copyright infringement. Copying it to mainspace, with proper attribution, is legal, but it goes against our community norms, and in most cases it's definitely not respectful. The answers to "Is X legal" and "Is X appropriate" are very often significantly different. Nobody's likely to complain if you move content to mainspace from the sandbox of a user who's been inactive for a long time, but (1) you still ought to leave a talk page note, in case the user comes back, and (2) that's because good content ought not be forgotten simply because the user's no longer active. This is quite different from when the user is still active; even if you think its writer has forgotten it, you should simply leave a talk page note, not copy the content to mainspace. Nyttend (talk) 18:44, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

As I said on the user's page, moving something from someone else's user space "is like a stranger walking up and eating food from your plate at a restaurant, without asking." Even if done with attribution, it is still a rude act. While it doesn't break any copyright policy if done properly, as a behavior, it should be discouraged. You should ask first unless you know the user is no longer active. While none of us owns our user space, there is no question that we each are granted a higher degree of control over it, and this should be respected. Dennis - 2¢ 19:32, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Very well put. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:20, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

There is something very wrong about this situation. Until the article is released/published by the author and placed into article space, it is not an "article", and thus is protected by copyright. If it's not that way here, then it should be. OTOH, if an editor is creating an article in their userspace and they allow other editors to help them develop the article, then they share in that copyright, but it's still not an "article" until released, and it is the right of the original author to determine the time of release. We really need to ensure that the author maintains control until they are ready, or they release control voluntarily. They need to give permission.

If a hunter, knowing a fellow hunter was stalking and about to shoot a deer, then shot the deer first, some blows might ensue, or even a grave found later in the forest for such a misdeed. Poaching an article or a deer is a very offensive crime.

We should make it a behavioral policy that poaching someone else's work is sanctionable. We don't allow legal threats between editors for such, otherwise illegal, actions, but we do have other ways of sanctioning misdeeds here. What is illegal and wrong outside of Misplaced Pages should usually, to some degree. also be considered wrong here. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

This is quite interesting. I can't see any issue of Copyright since no user owns their talk page or anything else on WP. Also, since only free content can be included on WP then it is impossible to claim copyright on something that no one can claim to own. If I come upon your sand castle on the beach and knock it over, I am a jerk, but I haven't done anything illegal. It would appear that the only real problem here is the notion of who creates an article and who gets credit for actually creating an article. Arzel (talk) 21:49, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

This is not a debating forum where we explore the meaning of liberty and ownership. The entire issue is that building the encyclopedia requires a collaborative community, and if an editor is slowly developing an article in their user space, then another editor is being disruptive if they choose to move the page or copy/paste it with attribution. Sure, if the author takes a long wikibreak and messages on their talk result in no feedback, it might be appropriate to move a draft from someone's user space. However, the issue here is entirely to do with fostering a collaborative community. Johnuniq (talk) 00:05, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

It's just bloody rude. Irondome (talk) 00:13, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

More admins at CFD, please

WP:CFD has a major backlog - going as far back as early August. Some help out there would be useful. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:58, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I second this. A couple of admins spending an hour or two on this would clear it today. Lugnuts 18:30, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Any takers? Lugnuts 08:50, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Requests for Comment/User:PBS - Admin misconduct

I'm short of time and need to leave on a trip where will not have any internet. I put an RFC together on my talk page with the precious few minutes I have. I'm several hours late departing for a fairly long sabatical and did not have time to do the whole process. Please be kind, I don't deserve the treatment I've received.~Technophant (talk) 19:19, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

In my absence I authorize my friend and esteemed colleague User:P123ct1 to edit this RFC/U and answer question on my behalf. He has over 25% of the total edits to the ISIL page and has been instrumental in helping me curate this article since we both started in May of this year. (If this RFC/U could get transferred to it's proper place that would be best.) Bye for now.~Technophant (talk) 19:56, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand the urgency or timing of this request, honestly. If you're leaving, and won't be able to even edit for several days, a week, or longer, why the rush to have interaction bans imposed in your absence? As near as I can figure out, that's all you're requesting. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I was not consulted about this. I only learned of this RfC/U half an hour ago via an email from Technophant and this delegation of responsibility was not mentioned. I have been given a responsibility I was not asked to undertake. This will have to wait for his return. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 20:18, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that policy permits one person to speak for another anyway, at least to this extent. WP:Power of attorney is a redlink.... Dennis - 2¢ 20:25, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to come back from your trip, then start a Rfc/U & avoid proxies? GoodDay (talk) 20:30, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Given P123ct1's unwillingness to be the proxy, it won't be possible for this RFCU to happen. And I agree, it would be quite a bad idea for us to have some sort of POA system. "Can you do X for me" is appropriate if you're asking someone else to take responsibility, and I doubt if anyone would complain (on principle) if you say "Can you copy/paste what I wrote", but making one person responsible for another person's actions is confusing and really ought not be done. Nyttend (talk) 20:49, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't see much problem with it. You're going on a trip and can't edit Misplaced Pages in that time frame, so you make sure someone trusted--who you know shares your concerns drafts it--that's fine. He's not blocked, so it's not 'proxying', he's asking someone he trusts to edit the page with the concerns since he feels it's urgent enough to warrant it. No problem with that, and I don't know of any policy/guideline that prohibits it. Tutelary (talk) 21:26, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Tutelary: Have you read my comments? I was not asked. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 21:34, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Even with your acceptance, it wouldn't matter. Speaking hypothetically, what if you then go and vandalize articles, make personal attacks against a bunch of people, then delete the front page, and claim you were doing it on his behalf? That is the problem, the concept itself is completely flawed and will never see the light of day in any policy here. Dennis - 2¢ 21:42, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

No, that's outside of the view that the user tried to guise him to do. There's a whole difference between that is 'Hey, I'm going away for a few days and I believe that this RFC/U is urgent enough and I need someone to draft it for me. X user has permission to do so.' versus blatant vandalism, personal attacks, and the like. How so, Dennis? You're going to the maximum extreme in this sort and I don't like it. It's common sense. When you tell a user to draft something for you, and they then go vandalize and try to blame it on you, that's a Competence is required problem, not a 'who can I pin my trollish antics on' problem. And yes, P123ct1, I did, I was referring to the general idea of it. Tutelary (talk) 21:47, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Extremes are used to demonstrate points. The main point is that no where at Misplaced Pages is another editor allowed to speak on behalf of another. Even with his permission, no policy authorizes it. Dennis - 2¢ 21:55, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

...no policy disallows it either. Tutelary (talk) 21:59, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, there is a rather slight precedent for having other individuals presenting information in another person's name, even to ArbCom. I did that once myself regarding an arb regarding an editor named Mattise or Mattisse or Matisse or something along those lines. Granted, I have no direct knowledge if it has ever been done any other time though. John Carter (talk) 22:02, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

There is a difference is relaying information/text (something I've done myself) and making decisions without their ongoing knowledge for another user. That has no precedent that I know of, and I can't see the community remotely allowing that to happen. Dennis - 2¢ 22:09, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I was restraining myself in my comment. The behaviour is unethical. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 20:59, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you; your opposition to the idea (as opposed to simply not feeling like helping) was evident in your first sentence, and I agree with you. If you want someone to undertake something big for you, by all means you need to get the person's consent well beforehand, rather than asking at the last moment and assuming a "yes" answer. Nyttend (talk) 21:13, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I repeat, I was not asked, and the RfC/U itself was never discussed with me before it appeared either. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 21:20, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

The RFC/U isn't set up appropriately. If not certified in 48 hrs it would be deleted. He list it as certified on his talk page but it doesn't seem to be so.It seems he feels it's active.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:26, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

It isn't a proper RfC/U. However, I'm not sure an Admin has the power to say "You are not to discuss Gregkaye's behaviour in any other Wikipeida forum." (for 24 hours). User:Nyttend, ], User:TenOfAllTrades, what do you all think? Can this be done under General sanctions? Dougweller (talk) 21:45, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh no do not get me wrong, I'm only mentioning that it wasn't set up properly. I'm just mentioning this so that if in 48 hours nothing changes in regards to it it can be deleted.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:49, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

In the immortal words of a fellow editor, I'm out of here! ~ P123ct1 (talk) 21:54, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

We could say it properly, e.g. "Your behavior has been so disruptive that you are not...forum, or I will block you". Of course it's easily overturnable by any other admin, not to mention commmunity consensus. Never got into general sanctions (whether requesting, enforcing, being subject to, etc.), so I can't speak to that. Haven't looked at the RFCU page, so I can't comment on the substantial bits. Nyttend (talk) 21:57, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

As Technophant say (s)he has gone way on a fairly long sabatical then as far as I can tell, there is no need to keep the ban in place as I only imposed it to reduce the tension between two editors. So I intend to lift the ban on both of the editors immediately. -- PBS (talk) 22:21, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I lifted the ban at 22:34, 9 November 2014 (diff) Technophant makes an edit at 22:52, 9 November 2014. -- PBS (talk) 23:03, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

And User:Kww has blocked him indefinitely. Dougweller (talk) 11:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

In all this time I have again been badmouthed above and have not been able to comment because of the ban. The whole thing is horribly wrong. Misrepresentations and an apparently partisan application of Misplaced Pages's rules by Technophant and other logins have been the trend and their detrimental effect is still deeply embedded in a related trail of edits. I think that a suitable penalty for infringements like sock-puppetry should be the creation of back edits through the offending editors history. Otherwise the sock puppeteer wins and can just get a new login at a later date. Reading above I wouldn't be surprised if this was partly what was planned.

On many occasions I have found Technophant's interventions to be of a greatly disturbing and troubling nature and, perhaps, this is epitomised by final content of a thread I started entitled: #Genuine_concern. In relation to the long span of this ongoing dispute I would like to commend the conduct of P123ct1 who has, in everything I have seen, acted in an exemplary way making great efforts to facilitate peace. These are very evident both on my talk page and elsewhere. This has been a three character Wikidrama which P123ct1 has continually tried to defuse. Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:08, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:31, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

As the sanctions state "or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project." I retract any suggestion that PBS was wrong to ban Technophant from discussing someone. Sorry about that! Dougweller (talk) 13:47, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Appeal of broadly construed three month topic ban

On the 8th of October I was topic banned for three months from Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and broadly related pages by the user PBS for being "disruptive"; the two justifying diffs were supplied as this and this. Note that the latter entry appears to have a refactoring of another's comments but that was dealt with and recognized later as a mistake. As evidenced by PBS's template and subsequent text he deemed that my disruption was created by not acknowledging or abiding by a unilateral moratorium on a topical discussion he suggested on Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Subsequent to the objection of myself and several other involved third parties, as evidenced across talk pages, PBS stated that my three month topic ban was timed to coincide with his concocted moratorium which he deemed was to last until "the New Year".

I understand how ArbCom rulings work. I understand what disruptive editing looks like. I even try to consciously remind myself not to be melodramatic in the face of perceived slights or injustices. Nonetheless, this topic ban is not only undue in it's very inception but the length is arbitrary, unjust, and far outside the normal parameters associated with this ArbCom ruling. In fact, the length of this already unjustified topic ban seems to be entirely the product of an arbitrary timeline for a topical discussion PBS unilaterally decided upon instead of any logic based upon my actions here or my overall editing history.

My basic point remains unchanged, that the name of the Islamic State is dynamic and debatable and should be discussed by interested editors. That PBS would interject his own whims upon a non-pointy discussion (without any actual main space article changes) and then topic ban a user in good standing for not "abiding by" what was put forward as a "suggested moratorium" is quite outside the normal prerogatives we give to our admins. I would ask for a total rescinding of the topic ban without any prejudice. The ban is unjust and the underlying points of the discussion I was engaged in are perfectly legitimate in light of not only our naming conventions but the application of core policy. GraniteSand (talk) 05:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Looks like an odd ban to me. The admin placed a moratorium on name changes for ISIL, which, I think, shouldn't be done. (consensus is what make or breaks change , not by admin fiat ), and the two posts he pointed to were not disruptive, nor incivil. It was normal conversation on the page regarding the name. I'd say that ban needs to be shot down, and the admin needs to be , at the very least, counseled that he cannot rule by fiat the way he's attempting to do on that page. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 11:11, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I initially suggested a moratorium when closing the RM on the page (Revision as of 19:12, 3 October 2014). When that was ignored, I posted a more explicit message (Revision as of 18:10, 7 October 2014) Warning that it was no longer a suggestion and was now a warning by an uninvolved administrator under the general sanctions that apply to that talk page.

Revisions to User talk:GraniteSand

• Revision as of 19:11, 7 October 2014 (diff) — Sanctions notification specifically mentioning new sections initiated by GraniteSand since the last RM. Includes the line "If you have any questions about this post then feel free to ask me."
• Revision as of 22:20, 7 October 2014 (diff) GraniteSand removes Sanctions notification (prof or reading).
• Revision as of 10:28, 8 October 2014 (diff) Topic Ban
• Revision as of 23:47, 8 October 2014 (diff) In response to a posting by GraniteSand on my talk page Revision as of 21:22, 8 October 2014 (diff). This explanation includes the diffs mentioned above by GraniteSand note that the Rabbit line is incidental, one has to look at the bottom of the diff to see its relevance to this topic ban.

The reason for the ban is fundamentally a case of IDIDNTHEARTHAT. As I outline in the last bulleted diff presented I had been quite clear on this issue, but the two edits made by GraniteSand to the article talk page (see initial diff 1 and diff 2) shows that GraniteSand had either not understood, or was wilfully ignoring my disruptive posting. GraniteSand made no attempt to ask me for clarification either on the talk page (where GraniteSand made the two postings below my "moritorium/disruptive" statement) or on my talk page.

The length of the moratorium is three months this is customarily recognised as the minimum time between RMs whenthe participants of an RM have discussed the issue thoroughly--and with four RMs in the proceeding 2 months + a host of other sections on the talk page about moves had discussed the issue thoroughly and exhausted the RM process. The length of the topic ban on GraniteSand ties in with the next date that there will most probably be discussion on moving the page so that GraniteSand can participate in that discussion.

This is not a user account block or a general ban, GraniteSand still has literally millions of other pages to edit during the topic ban. -- PBS (talk) 11:41, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

The sanctions don't say anywhere that a discussion changing or move the page to a different name ( no comment on whether or not the name suggested has merit) is part of them. Once again, admins cannot rule by fiat. There's literally only ONE time that anything that even remotely looking like a fiat can be used, and that's WP:OFFICE actions, and that's rarely ever done. So, by admission you:

• Made a suggestion, that no one took you up on
• Made that suggestion a rule. With nothing else except your status as an admin to back it up
• Then proceeded to block someone for not being incvil, but rather for violating the rule you added in
  
  

That's an bad block and it needs to be reverted. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 13:33, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't want to rehash the debate PBS wasn't involved in (until he suspended it) but here's some background on my edits in response to new and more explicit accusations of disruptive editing. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is predicated on the assumption that the parameters of the discussion and the accompanying justification have mostly not changed, that you're just beating a dead horse. When it comes to naming conventions surrounding the Islamic State, there is an active and robust discussion going on in academic and journalistic circles. In the days leading up to my topic ban there had been an empirical shift in what these independent reliable sources had to say on the topic, as I demonstrated on the discussion page by compiling a list of entirely new sources on the topic, some less than a day old at the time. Additionally, most naming convention discussions had taken place prior to ISIS changing their name to Islamic State and had therefor largely been a matter of semantics between ISIS and ISIL and not a discussion on whether the new IS was preferred over the previously settled upon ISIL. This is all to say that I was bringing new sources to an active topic and advocating my interpretation of those sources. That is nothing to be discouraged, much less topic banned for, and is not a case of disruptive behavior, even if some editors didn't like it or disagreed with my interpretation. GraniteSand (talk) 23:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

The user refused to consider consensus and was very combative against PBS and other involved users. He seemed to be looking for a fight. Legacypac (talk) 05:01, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

This appeal has now gone unaddressed for long enough that I've had to unarchive it. GraniteSand (talk) 07:36, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

User:KoshVorlon, you say "The sanctions don't say anywhere that a discussion changing or move the page to a different name ( no comment on whether or not the name suggested has merit) is part of them" - no of course they don't, they were never meant to be that specific. They are about behaviour, in this case behaviour in that discussion. Dougweller (talk) 11:15, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Dougweller That sentance (mine ) could have been written better, but yes, you're correct. General Sanctions, as well as Discretionary Sanctions are meant to be specific per General Sanction guidelines. They state:

When general sanctions are employed, they are specifically detailed instructions by which community consensus or Arbcom motion has empowered administrators to act single-handedly to sanction editors who are not complying with general behavioral or editorial guidelines and policies. .

In this case, a suggestion was made that was not instituted as General Sanctions of any kind, it was merely a suggestion. A suggestion can be taken or not, with no penalty to refusing. In this case, the suggestion was not taken, and the user was blocked for it. It looks, to me, like the admin overstepped his bounds, and I still believe the ban needs to be reversed. Not to be a dick or anything, but if the sanction had already been in place, and then violated, Granite Sand would have no leg to stand on, but that didn't happen, again, he didn't take a suggestion given to him, that's all. Reverse the topic ban and do what's right. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 16:37, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, User:KoshVorlon, take a look at Misplaced Pages:General sanctions#Active sanctions and tell me how this sanction is basically any different, and what details instructions are lacking in it that are present one of our most frequently violated sanctions, those on Israeli-Palestine articles. That sanction says "Any uninvolved administrator may impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process (full text)." The Syrian civil war sanction says (Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant "Any uninvolved administrator may, at his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process." Identical because this sanction is meant to mimic ARBPIA sanctions. I don't know what you mean by "if the sanction had been in place". Dougweller (talk) 16:58, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Certainly Dougweller. Yes, I agree with you that there are indeed sanctions on this page, and yes they mirror ARBPIA, but none of those restrictions show anything about starting a discussion, they state the article is under 1RR except for obvious vandalism. Yes, Granite sand was warned about those same sanctions here however, please note , again that those sanctions do not include starting new discussions about changing the name. That was a suggestion made by the blocking admin [here , and note this was a suggestion not a sanction, just a suggestion that was in no way covered by discretionary sanctions at all. After this suggestion was made, it was not accepted ( note the discussions below concerning changing the name ).

Now, we all can make suggestions, if they're not accepted, it's pretty well known that it's poor form to try to force that change through. Or said another way, if I had been the one to post the suggestion "Hey let's not talk about renaming ISIL again until next year" and no one took me up on it, and I decided to take action by deleting anything that mentioned such a rename and pointed back to that suggestion, I'd be in some hot water, and it would be well deserved. That's just what this admin did. His suggestion wasn't taken, consensus went against him, so he decided to try to force it through | here as "Discretionary Sanctions", but note, that Discretionary sanctions don't cover this, it's not a blank check for the admin to push his way through and ignore consensus, which is just what he did.

Unban him, it's just that simple. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 17:55, 26 October 2014 (UTC) _{yeah, I know, TL/DR, sorry about that ! KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 17:55, 26 October 2014 (UTC)}

User:KoshVorlon - Sorry, you're still confused. Sanctions and 1RR are separate things. The sanctions have no specific restrictions, they are about behavior:"if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process". Behavior can be in article space, on the article's talk page, or in fact elsewhere if it concerns the subject covered by the sanction. The fact that it involved a move discussion is immaterial. To repeat myself, they cover any discussion relevant to the sanctions. Dougweller (talk) 21:49, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

• I think the sanctions are pretty clear: "Sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length, bans from editing any page or set of pages within the scope of these sanctions, bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics, restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. RGloucester — ☎ 02:16, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

To reiterate, my appeal has nothing to do with the scope of an uninvolved administrator's prerogative in using discretionary sanctions in the instance of what is perceived as disruptive behavior. My appeal is based on the facts and circumstances of PBS's judgment in invoking that prerogative in this particular instance. I maintain that my behavior was not disruptive, that PBS lacked the consensus he asserted here, that his behavior was unwise and unilateral, that the scope of my editing doesn't warrant a topical ban, and that the term of my topic ban is far outside the normal parameters of such bans. I'm disturbed that no administrator has yet taken this up. I appreciate Dougweller's and RGloucester's discussions on the finer points of ArbCom rulings but they're not relevant to my appeal. Also, RGlouceseter is rather involved in the subject at hand. GraniteSand (talk) 17:27, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

@GraniteSand: Well, I what I meant by the bolding of that piece of text was that you should focus your argument on whether PBS's use of these measures was "reasonably necessary". He doesn't need "consensus", because community sanctions give him power as an uninvolved administrator to unilaterally take "any measures reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project". The question here is not whether PBS had the authority to do what he did, but whether it was "reasonable". You'll have a much more effective argument if you take-up that angle. Why do you think it was "unreasonable" for him to issue the moratorium? Following that, why do you think it was "unreasonable" for him to impose a three month topic ban? Answer these two questions, and you'll be in better shape. RGloucester — ☎ 17:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Not consensus on the application of the topic ban but an assertion that there was a universal agreement other than myself on his "moratorium on discussion", which was not the case. I thought he made the assertion here but, upon review, he did not. I'll try to find the diff but the larger issue of my appeal doesn't hinge on the assertion of consensus for the moratorium because it clearly doesn't exist anyway, as has already been demonstrated. Nobody asked for it and when he "suggested it" nobody took him up on it. I think that I've already made clear that my edits were not disruptive and that others on the article talk page were not only involved in discussing my position in a constructive manner but then went on to say that they found PBS's unsolicited moratorium unnecessary and my topic ban excessive and inappropriate. It would appear that instead of PBS issuing a topic ban to prevent the disruption of the project he issued a moratorium on discussion and then banned me simply because he had decided what he thought was the right answer to the topic at hand and was tired of seeing it come up, regardless of changes in the form and content of reliable sources on the subject. I would also think that my appeal inherently infers PBS demonstrated unreasonable behavior. Bringing up brand new reliable sources making assertions about a dynamic topic of frequent and substantive discussion and talking about how our policies relate to what those sources say is not disruptive. Then, aside from the application of the ban, the length is an unreasonable outlier all on its own. The other topical bans issued under this set of sanctions last for days not months. His topic ban lasts for the length of his unsolicited and ill-formed moratorium when topical bans should be reflective of the scope and severity of the "disruptive" behavior. Regardless, there should have been a substantive response made to this appeal by uninvovled admins some time ago. I know there is a reasonable hesitancy to overturn other admins decisions but this seems rather clear cut to me. After all, I know most admins aren't afraid of saying "no" if they truly feel that's the right answer. GraniteSand (talk) 19:38, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I suppose the question is, then, do you plan to abide by the moratorium in the event that your topic ban is lifted? Or, on the other hand, do you plan to challenge the moratorium as well? RGloucester — ☎ 20:03, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that the moratorium itself is unreasonable, which is why I asked for this decision to be overturned "without prejudice". I'm sorry if that wasn't clear; it's rather wikilawyer-ish and an old bad habit of mine. Were the topic to be totally stale, which is to say the subject wasn't fluid and the body of reliable sources not changing, then community consensus alone would be enough to simply refer new queries to previous discussions, making a moratorium superfluous. The reality, though, is the opposite, which makes the moratorium unwise and stifling to the nature of the project. How can we disallow the discussion of a relevant topic in a fast changing subject? It's antithetical to what we do here. Now, of course, if my appeal is overturned and the unilateral moratorium not then I won't disregard it, that would be belligerent and unwise. The moratorium should be overturned, though, and I'll pursue it as an independent topic of discussion, here or elsewhere. GraniteSand (talk) 20:14, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I think it is best to do the following. Firstly, separate the matter of your topic ban and the moratorium. Secondly, agree to abide by the moratorium until it is overturned or expires in return for the lifting of the topic ban. Thirdly, if you'd still like to continue your suit to appeal the moratorium, open a new thread at this noticeboard after the topic ban has been lifted. I believe that this is the best way forward. If you are willing to follow this route, I will support lifting topic ban. This thread here should only deal with the matter of your topic ban. RGloucester — ☎ 20:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I think that's entirely reasonable. GraniteSand (talk) 20:23, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

@PBS: – As you were the sanctioning administrator, would you consider lifting the topic ban in line with the procedure I outlined above? I think this is a good compromise. First of all, it will confirm whether the moratorium is justified in a new thread, and secondly, it will allow for that moratorium to be abided by in the mean-time. It strikes me as being better to try and resolve these disputes, rather than to let them languish, and I do believe that GraniteSand has no particular ill-intent that is so worthy of a three month topic ban. RGloucester — ☎ 22:15, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

All those sections were on the talk page at the time I imposed the moratorium. It has long been accepted practice for RM processes to draw a line under move discussions, for a time between discussions, to stop endless discussion.

GraniteSand has written in this section:

1. "My basic point remains unchanged, that the name of the Islamic State is dynamic and debatable and should be discussed by interested editors."
2. "This is all to say that I was bringing new sources to an active topic and advocating my interpretation of those sources"
3. "The moratorium should be overturned, though, and I'll pursue it as an independent topic of discussion, here or elsewhere".

This is a continuation of the behaviour for which GraniteSand's topic ban was imposed.

It is quite common administrators who close RMs to put time limits on when the next one can be held, so my actions were not unusual; and limits on RMs can also be found applied by administrators under various sanctions (eg Talk:Liancourt Rocks).

RGloucester you write "I think this is a good compromise" is a rhetoric construct, as it implies that there is a compromise to he had and that this is a good one (it also implies that you are a neutral actor -- you are not "No. Please stop. There is no need to be constantly debating the title. Leave it well alone. We've had enough move requests already." written by you directly before my moratorium statement ). It is also no compromise at all because it allows GraniteSand to fill the talk page with debates about the moratorium and "that it should be overturned because..." Something GraniteSand has made clear (s)he will do in this section.

Instead here is an alternative proposal: that there will be an RfC with a simple statement "It is proposed the moratorium of page moves should be lifted immediately" (similar to Talk:Sarah Jane Brown#Propose moratorium on pagemove discussion -- the difference being that was proposing to create one this is to lift it); and if there is a consensus that the moratorium should be lifted the topic ban on GraniteSand will also end, otherwise the topic ban stays in place until the moratorium ends. -- PBS (talk) 12:27, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

PBS, there is no reason to attack me. You're well aware that I support the moratorium, as evidenced by comments. I never said otherwise. However, I do not support the topic ban. I believe these matters are separate. GraniteSand has agreed to abide by the moratorium until it is overturned or expires. That means he won't be "filling the talk page with debates about the moratorium", because, as I said, he would pursue an overturn of the moratorium in a new thread here at WP:AN, as is appropriate for review of administrative actions. The idea that his topic ban will only end if the moratorium ends is draconian, to say the least. RGloucester — ☎ 14:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

So, by your post above, 6 users asked for a move discussion. You state that this occured after you suggested that no move occur until next year. It appears consensus was against you. I understand you're aggravated, however, by calling your suggestion and discretionary sanction, you've given the appearance of ignoring consensus and forcing your will in. Therefore, in a show of good will, I suggest you drop the ban. As my contribution history shows, I haven't posted on that page at all, and have no stake in whatever name consensus decides, so it's not like I have a side I'm on here (as far as naming goes ). KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 17:51, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

PBS has seemed to have gone through a daily edit cycle without responding to either KoshVorlon or RGloucester. While I very much appreciate the input of admins and editors so far, an entire week has gone by and no uninvoloved admin has rendered a judgement or opinion here. This is ridiculous. Therefor I'm going to take the rather unorthodox step of reaching out and requesting the input of three admins whose opinions and judgement I greatly respect, even though I've often found myself in disagreement with them at various points. These editors are @DGG:, @Acalamari: and @BrownHairedGirl:. This could very much be viewed as canvassing but all three are of independent mind and I don't expect any particular result. At this point any result would be adequate, even if it's "no". I just want some resolution here so I can move on to the next step, one way or another. GraniteSand (talk) 12:47, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I did not respond to KoshVorlon because the time stamps on my post do not support the assertion. I did not respond to RGloucester because I think that I have already answered the points RGloucester raised. I have started an RfC on the Moratorium on the talk page of the article (See here) -- PBS (talk) 14:07, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• I was asked for an opinion. As I see it. the disruption is the continued focus on the pagename of the article. Such repeated discussions are in my opinion not conducive to editing articles, which is what an encyclopedia should be doing. I support unblock if he is willing to accept not discussing renaming of this article anywhere on WP until the end of the moratorium, and not bringing an RfC on the matter or encouraging one. (If on is brought by someone else in good faith, I think one brief comment there would be allowable, but I very strongly advise that nobody open such a RfC--it is counterproductive to the concept of the moratorium.) I think the moratorium was a very good idea. I would in fact be very much in favor of a considerably longer one, except that the actual situation in the RW is itself unstable. DGG ( talk ) 18:13, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

@DGG:, as I said before, I'll abide by the moratorium until it is lifted. It seems like PBS has decided to start an RfC. I'm assuming that nobody has a problem with me participating there in a concise manner. As far as lifting my topic ban, should another uninvoled editor agree in addition to you would you be comfortable making an affirmative action there? I know that both you can RGloucester have made conditional statements of support there but RGloucester is involved and I wouldn't feel good about it without the input of one more admin. GraniteSand (talk) 22:53, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

You cannot participate in the RfC whilst topic-banned. That would lead to a block. RGloucester — ☎ 23:02, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Which is why, after two admins the only admin to participate so far has conditionally supported the lifting of my ban, I suspect @PBS: has put the cart before the horse and stared the RfC now. I would guess he sees the potential for my topic ban being lifted so he's trying to have this done without my participation. Unless I'm wrong, and he, as the blocking admin, wouldn't mind my participation there. GraniteSand (talk) 23:12, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

this is of course an absurd situation: this sort of circular dilemma is a violation of one of our basic principles, NOT BURO. I am not familiar with the working of arb enforcement & how to word things there. Will someone who is please enter the appropriate modification there. Enough is enough. (I can say from everything I've seen here that I will very strongly support continuing the moratorium.) DGG ( talk ) 04:34, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I initiated the RfC on the moratorium, to counter the the argument presented here that is is an arbitrary action with no support. I would prefer to unilaterally lift the sanctions on GraniteSand, but GraniteSand you have to give a clear indication that you will not only follow DGG's requirement " is willing to accept not discussing renaming of this article anywhere on WP until the end of the moratorium, and not bringing an RfC on the matter or encouraging one." but in addition agree not to discuss the Moratorium anywhere on WP (or participate in the current RfC on the Moratorium -- If you wish to have your opposition to the moratorium noted in the Open RfC I will do that for you). -- PBS (talk) 11:46, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

{@PBS: The alternative option, PBS, is to change the topic ban. You can very easily narrow it to "discussing changes to the title of the ISIL article for xxxxx", as opposed banning him from ISIL all together. RGloucester — ☎ 12:37, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Lifting my topic ban while insisting that I not participate in the only subject I was an active in the topic isn't lifting the topic ban at all. You've started an RfC on your unsolicited moratorium, poorly advertised it and then insisted that my dissenting voice not be allowed to participate in it, all to prove its broad support. That's ridiculous. Your RfC needs not just the dissenting voices that initially objected to it but a wider consensus from outside the article page which has become somewhat of an echo chamber on the issue between two or three editors. I fully agree to RGloucester's conditions and but you've already nullified DGG's terms by starting an RfC. GraniteSand (talk) 23:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Where else would you like the RfC advertised? -- PBS (talk) 14:32, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

The bevy of previous editors who have brought up the topic should be advised and it should be advertised in relevant WikiProjects such as MILHIST, IRAQ, SYRIA, and TERRORISM. I'd also expand the RfC subject classification. GraniteSand (talk) 00:26, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I will not inform individual editors. I have added a heads up to the WT:MILHIST, WT:IRAQ, WT:SYRIA, and WT:TERRORISM. -- PBS (talk) 11:44, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• My view of it, for what it is worth, is that the topic ban was correctly added. There was a request to change the name, there was a consensus in opposition to changing the name, and GraniteSand continued to make edits changing the name and insisting on brining up the issue right away. That violates WP:CCC: "proposing to change a recent consensus can be disruptive." Given this was under discretionary sanctions PBS was free to institute the topic ban as an uninvolved admin. That said an exactly 3 month moratorium shouldn't be done without consensus (which the RfC seems to be providing from what I have seen of it so far). But GraniteSand was not waiting even close to a reasonable time before proposing to see of consensus had changed, and that's disruptive even without an explicit moratorium. That said I would support limiting the scope of the topic ban to "discussing changes to the title of the ISIL article" until the RfC for the moratorium closes and then for the length of any moratorium, outside of a single vote and a maximum 300 word reason in the RfC on the moratorium. --Obsidi (talk) 23:44, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Your view is worth a lot, thanks for taking the plunge and participating. Now, for what my two cents is worth, I'd like to point out that the consensus you sight was merely a snapshot. If there was a consensus to not reexamine naming conventions then the page wouldn't be seeing a flood of requests to do so. The consensus you're talking about consists of two, at best three, editors who are heavily involved in the article space. Not that I'd say it constitutes ownership but it's definitely some what of an echo chamber where those few editors quickly band together to shoot down new voices concerned about naming conventions. COncerns pop up, these couple of editors play off each other to shoot it down, rinse and repeat. It was for this reason which I wanted to put together a well advertised RfC on the subject, so as to establish an actual consensus, which I was topic banned for suggesting. Also consider that much of the "old history" used to justify this moratorium was based on the semantic argument between ISIL and ISIS, one that I agree has been resolved. My concerns are about the recent renaming of the group to Islamic State, which is only a few weeks old and has so has a much shorter history. I also introduced brand new sources on the topic which has only broken in the past two weeks, thereby demonstrating that what independent reliable sources had to say on the matter had shifted. GraniteSand (talk) 00:26, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

This appeal is now two weeks old and only one outside admin has weighed in. Come on, admins. GraniteSand (talk) 09:44, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Unarchived for a second time. GraniteSand (talk) 08:51, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I support the three-month ban based on the evidence presented to date. I also urge GraniteSand to closely read and follow RGloucester's advice of 20:20 on 27 October, which I think is more likely to be productive and get results of the kind GS wants than continuing to unarchive this discussion. Personally, I tend to think that this repeated unarchiving could on its own be seen as potentially problematic behavior, something along the lines of beating a dead horse or tendentious editing, and further efforts to continue in this line could lead to the sanctions being expanded or lengthened. John Carter (talk) 17:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

hack in progress?

Denim Demon

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

Can an admin delete this expired prod, I'm editing with my work computer and this page is somehow blocked with my work filter. Thanks Secret 20:26, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The Honest Company

I have recreated The Honest Company and want to make sure that it seems to be sufficient, given that a prior version was deleted less than 30 days ago.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:57, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) It was speedied under A7. Tony's current version at least passes that low bar. Ivanvector (talk) 22:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

No problems that I see. The entire pre-A7 contents, written by User:Nmarte, were The Honest Company is an American company that sells eco friendly diapers and a natural line of bath, skincare, home cleaning, and organic nutritional supplement products. The Santa Monica, California based company was established in 2012 and currently remains privately held. Founders include Jessica Alba, Brian Lee, Christopher Gavigan, and Sean Kane. You've demonstrated secondary source coverage, including (significantly) something from almost half a world away from the subject of the article. Completely different and entirely free of A7-worthy problems. Nyttend (talk) 22:40, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I found this useful article, but the dogs won't quit bugging me long enough to turn it into proper prose. Dennis - 2¢ 00:27, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Closure review: America: Imagine the World Without Her

This is a request to review the close at Talk:America: Imagine the World Without Her to determine whether the closer interpreted the consensus incorrectly. I discussed this with the closer Here. I questioned the close by talking about a lack of consensus to support closing the Rfc by agreement and told him/her the closing should be inconclusive. According to WP:RFC/U:

"However, where a summary is disputed, all participants must agree at the RfC/U talk page on which summary to use. This is because in the absence of a clear consensus one way or another, writing the closer's own view of the dispute as the summary/close has been considered controversial in the past. In case a wording has not been agreed upon, the RfC/U should be closed as if it was being closed due to inactivity (or closed due to other dispute resolution)."

There was no discussion of a summary, resolution, or clear consensus that "all participants" agreed to. According to WP policy, the close should have been due to inactivity or closed due to other dispute resolution, certainly not by agreement. I understand that consensus does not require unanimity, however, all opposed arguments, especially when backed by WP policy, need to be addressed and considered. I explained this to the closer and he/she tried to disregard my arguments as being irrelevant to the scope of the RFC. When I proved that the RFC included determining whether a source could be used within a particular article and that my argument was relevant, the closer offered a new justification of his/her close by using majority opinion. Majority opinion does not determine consensus and does not override WP policy least the policy itself gets changed. When I explained that simply going with majority opinion and ignoring policy based arguments was disallowed, the closer ceased showing interest in discussing it further or trying to substantiate the close with a justification that wasn't against WP policy. Seeing as there is no policy based justification for the close, I suggest that the close be changed to "due to inactivity" or moved to a different dispute resolution forum that addresses the aspect of appropriate uses of questionable sources, and/or whether a source is questionable or not.Scoobydunk (talk) 15:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The policy cited by the OP has to do with closure of a user conduct RFC, which doesn't appear to be applicable. The RFC was a article content RFC, which has different and less rigid closing guidelines. If the OP thinks that the close was improper, the venue for considering that is WP:AN. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:29, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Let's not get bureaucratic about going to WP:AN.--v/r - TP 17:55, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with TParis, that the bureaucracy shouldn't be a big issue. However, if editors are unwilling to examine this here, then I'll relist this on the other AN. Regarding RFC/U, I was mistaken in citing it, however my objection is still justified by WP guidelines regarding closing and the analysis of consensus. There is no clear consensus and the closer even admitted to ignoring policy based arguments which is against article content RFC guidelines for closing/moving discussions. There are also other matters like forum shopping that I didn't discuss with closer, but don't think it's necessary since there wasn't a consensus to begin with.Scoobydunk (talk) 18:46, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

That wasn't really an RFC. Looking back in history when it was open , it wasn't transcluded anywhere other than that page, so you never saw ANY input from anyone that didn't come to that page. That is fine for a discussion, but you don't get any "uninvolved" opinions that way. I guess you can call it "RFC", but really it is just a local discussion. I also note that you can go to WP:RSN to get better service when it comes to determining if a source is reliable or not. Not exactly what you are asking for, just saying that when you are looking for "objective opinions", you pretty much have to ask outside the circle of editors that are arguing over it. Dennis - 2¢ 23:08, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I didn't make the RFC. The only thing I'm asking for is that it's closure gets reviewed and hopefully overturned. If you and other editors feel that it doesn't even suffice as an RFC because it didn't seek external input, then that's fine with me.Scoobydunk (talk) 16:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• Moved from WP:ANI and retitled to "Closure review: America: Imagine the World Without Her". Cunard (talk) 03:11, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

This wasn't an RFC. That said it still falls under "other closures" on WP:Closing discussions. From my view of looking at the arguments, from a policy perspective the closure seems appropriate. Could have been more detailed, but, with proper attribution, it seems a fairly straightforward understanding of WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and WP:SELFSOURCE. Given you need to show the closure to be unreasonable understanding of consensus and that the closure wont be challenged "if the poll was close or even favored an outcome opposite the closure, if it was made on the basis of policy." It doesn't seem like the closure should be reversed to me. --Obsidi (talk) 23:00, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

There wasn't a consensus. No consensus was presented or agreed upon by the editors involved. On top of that, valid policy based arguments were completely ignored. Sorry, but WP:AttributePOV does not override WP:QS which specifically states that questionable and self published sources should only be used on topics/articles about themselves. Even the WP:Selfsource, that you referenced, defines where self published sources can be used and that's in articles about themselves or topics about themselves. A film review, is a review about a third party and is not about author or source itself. That means on articles about different topics, they are not considered reliable. If WP:AttributePOV was enough to merit inclusion of opinions simply because they are quoted and attributed, then we'd could put facebook messages from young earth creationists alongside peer reviewed scholarly works. Sorry, but WP has clearly defined policies regarding reliability and questionable sources have very limited use on wikipedia. So the comments/opinions citing WP:AttributePOV for inclusion of questionable sources are actually against policy and not aligned with it. WP:AttributePOV is for sources already deemed reliable and says nothing about self published works and questionable sources being permitted in any article so long as they are properly attributed. We have multiple policies that strictly prohibit that.

Without revising the discussion here. The point is that the closure admitted to ignoring arguments after demonstrating a lack of understanding of the scope of the discussion. That means their rationale for closing is inherently flawed because they didn't understand the purpose of the discussion to begin with. Furthermore, when this was pointed out, they admitted to just siding with "majority opinion" which is also against WP policies regarding consensus. There was no consensus, valid policy based arguments were ignored while other arguments that violated WP policies were included, and that lead to an erroneous closure review.Scoobydunk (talk) 03:58, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Possible compromised administrator account - User:Antandrus

After being around for 10 years, I now think that this admin account has been compromised. I'm sorry, but since yesterday, an IP wrote on somebody's talk page and reverted what seemed to be perfectly fine edits, it's a talk page anyway. He even replied to me as I posted a biting newcomers notice:

"He's been vandalizing, trolling, and evading a ban for almost nine years. I know perfectly well who I am dealing with, and so do the Chicago police. Thank you. Antandrus (talk) 01:57, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Here, I'll give you one link that shows the depth of the problem. There's lots of other ranges too. But he's become an IP-hopper on T-Mobile now. Antandrus (talk) 02:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)"

That link referred to a completely different user. Who must be unrelated to the edits I am talking about. He also said "You're banned - get lost" when blocking an IP. Can a CheckUser come in to see these IP's. In fact, how can IP users be banned under WP:BAN? How did he have any authority to ban someone, as an admin who is not part of ArbCom? Must be a compromised administrator account, check the contribs and you can see some evidence. DSCrowned 08:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Please do not template the regulars, and please do not make silly accusations at noticeboards, particularly when an explanation has been given. Making a fuss about WP:DENY reversions is a guaranteed way to encourage vandalism and long term abusers. Antandrus is one of Misplaced Pages's most respected admins, although I'm not sure where this report fits in at WP:OWB. Johnuniq (talk) 08:45, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Please see the "defacto ban" component of WP:BAN — perhaps it's a frequently-blocked user who's never been unblocked and who will apparently never be unblocked; such a person would be included as "banned" even without an Arbcom discussion. Bans apply to individual people, so yes, we can ban people who aren't using an account. If you have spare time, look at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Gundagai editors — we even had an arbitration case for an IP that just wouldn't stop being disruptive. Nyttend (talk) 12:12, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

The longer you are an admin, the more of these kinds of users you get to know. We each have a few banned users we know so well that we can spot them from across the room. And yes, sometimes we are blunt when dealing with them, it gets old, we are human, we aren't obligated to act saccharine sweet to known banned users abusing the system. Antandrus' behavior, as indicated here, isn't out of character or expectations, so I am pretty confident he hasn't had his account pwned. Dennis - 2¢ 14:12, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Precisely. Thank you Dennis. I regularly revert and block this particular pest. For those with long memories, he has been called the 'George Reeves Person', and there's a deleted LTA page about him. He's a serial harasser and particularly vicious off-Wiki. I have, however, learned his real name and where he lives, should we need to take more serious action. It's been a couple years since I've received threats of physical harm from him. Antandrus (talk) 15:19, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Should requests for comment user conduct be abolished?

Please comment at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)#Do Away with RFC/U. Thank you, Oiyarbepsy (talk) 15:46, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Granada#Merger_proposal

Looking for an experienced editor or admin to assess consensus and close merge discussion as am unable to enter into a dialogue. --Bye for now (PTT) 16:21, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

The original poster didn't attempt to enter into a dialogue. There was no consensus. The original poster proposed a merge, and promptly implemented it, and was reverted, and implemented it again. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

The original poster proposed the merge, and implemented it, and move-warred to implement it again. The claim that there was no attempt at dialogue is literally true, in that the original poster made no attempt to engage in dialogue, but moved-warred to implement a controversial move. (The merge is probably correct, but did require dialogue and consensus.) Recommend a short-term block so that move can be undone while proposed merge is discussed. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Huh? There was no move at all; what are you talking about? There was a merger, involving a redirecting of the second page (Timeline of Granada into Granada), which Bye for now reinstated once. What we have here is a simple edit war in a very early stage, with both participants at 1R right now. The claim that Bye for now "made no attempt to engage in dialogue" is absurd – he proposed the merge, with all required notices, and then waited five days, during which no objections were raised. The poor conduct is on the other side: the other editor involved, M2545 (talk · contribs), reverted the merger with a pointer to "WP:CONSENSUS" and "WP:BRD", but in fact didn't point to any such consensus, nor to any attempt to establish such, nor did he make any contribution to the "D" part of "BRD". The failure to engage in dialogue is plainly on his side. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I do see now that five days did elapse. I don't see any discussion by either party. Was there a Request for Merge or a Request for Comments? Some method of Dispute Resolution should be used. Can this thread be closed with the issue taken either to moderated dispute resolution or an RFC? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:46, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

It's a simple content disagreement that doesn't require outside intervention at this stage. If M2545 wishes to raise objections to the merger, they'll simply need to do so, i.e. actually state why they object to it; if and when that happens, the further path of dispute resolution can be considered. In the absence of any such reasoned statement, the issue is moot. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:54, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments. I created the Timeline of Granada article on 5 November 2014. The article as of 11 November 2014 at 9:28 was still at the stub stage, and not given a chance to develop before it was "merged" into the main Granada article. -- M2545 (talk) 00:30, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Also, on 6 November 2014 on the talk page I objected as follows: "Some events in a city's economic history may not be dramatic, but can be notable nonetheless. See Timeline of Paris for an example of a city timeline with lots of economic, political, cultural, etc. detail. Instead of simply deleting content, please use Template:Relevance-inline or similar tool. Thanks." -- M2545 (talk) 09:38, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Also, the editor Bye for now did not really "merge" timeline content into the Granada article (see revision comparison) but simply deleted it instead. -- M2545 (talk) 09:46, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

The fact that there are many lists like this (see Category:City_timelines) does not seem to me to necessarily be a reason to keep this one. In fact it might even be seen as a reason to merge/delete some of the other ones. My reasons for removing things like "1910 - Cafe Futbol in business" were explained HERE but they were reverted anyway so I'm not sure of the relevance. As explained on the merger proposal: Anything I consider useful has been transferred to this article from the "Timeline of Granada" so that a redirect to this article can now be implemented. If other editors wish to transfer more information to the main Granada article then I don't see that being a problem as long as they can can justify it to other editors there (sourcing/notability/relevance etc). Anyway we now seem to be agreed, in principle at least, on the merge. --Bye for now (PTT) 10:51, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

There is no agreement. Timelines complement prose articles. The deleted Granada timeline stub should be restored and given ample time to develop, with contributions from mulitple editors. -- M2545 (talk) 11:46, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Or maybe moved to a sandbox page until its creation can be justified? In particular, the Lead section needs to be addressed, as was brought up the the timeline's talk page. --Bye for now (PTT) 12:51, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I think that the newly-created page "Granada_chronology" should also be covered by this merger proposal. --Bye for now (PTT) 16:16, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

That page is going to need a history merge with Timeline of Granada. The resulting page should probably be moved to Draft: space so you guys can work on it. Ivanvector (talk) 16:35, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me - though it will need the agreement of M2545 of course. --Bye for now (PTT) 16:58, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify, moving to Draft: should be open to discussion, but since Granada chronology appears to be copy-pasted from an old revision of Timeline of Granada, they have to be history-merged, to satisfy attribution requirements. An admin will need to do that, I don't have the tools. Ivanvector (talk) 20:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Tools down again/still

Who runs tools.wmflabs.org? When will they fix it? Sometimes it works, sometimes it does nothing at all, sometimes it produces a screen where everyone has zero edits. Is this incompetence? Does someone keep breaking something? Drmies (talk) 00:45, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

There's a thread on this topic at WP:VPT: see Misplaced Pages:Village pump (technical)#So... -- Diannaa (talk) 04:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Userpage being vandalized continually

Sorry if this is the wrong place to post this, but my userpage is being vandalized by socks. Apparently, I (legitimately) reverted this person's edit while I was thoughtlessly machine-gunning vandals with Huggle, and s/he got angry, started vandalizing my userpage, and created a sock farm to continue doing it. I requested protection of my userpage at RfPP, but I've received no reply. I'd like to request that any admin passing by semi-protect my userpage and block the accounts belonging to this person. If you want more detail, this page history speaks for itself. Thanks, --Biblioworm 01:51, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done GB fan 01:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. --Biblioworm 03:11, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

SPI backlog

Hi, if there are any CheckUsers out there, SPI is backlogged. Some reports have been sitting for 2+ weeks. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:35, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

3RR violation by user 37.53.192.157 on World Chess Championship 2014

Reverts #1, #2, #3 and #4. Note that #4 occurred after user 37.53.192.157 was duly given a 3RR warning. This edit warring prevents other editors from being able to see the two versions so that they can reach a consensus on the talk page.

Please note that 37.53.192.157 has only been editing since today, yet this user appears to be a highly experienced editor. On the article's talk page, I have asked him to properly log in to avoid the appearance of sock-puppetry.

Please let me know if you need any additional information. Thanks. --Art Smart /Heart 17:45, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• User ArtSmart already violated 3RR rule two times today. Five his reverts: He must be blocked because he added unneeded nbsp into the article. Note, no any consensus in favor of his source code. No such format in any chess articles (2012, 2013,...). I only removed unneeded "nbsp". It was unreadable source code with that nbsp. 37.53.192.157 (talk) 17:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• I ceased reverting once I was duly warned. 37.53.192.157 continued reverting after he was duly warned. His reverts have prevented other editors from seeing both versions so that a consensus could be reached on the talk page. I don't care that much which version is adopted. I only care that other editors get a chance to reach a consensus. 37.53.192.157's edit warring continues to prevent that consensus from being reached. I have also asked him to log in properly, since 37.53.192.157 has been editing only since today. This gives the appearance of sock-puppetry. --Art Smart /Heart 18:12, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
• User ArtSmart can use sandbox in his namespace to show his own version to reach the new consensus. Now consensus in all chess articles to show moves without nbsp option. 37.53.192.157 (talk) 18:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Gamergate notice

If any administrators uninvolved in the Gamergate matter are interested in helping enforce the general sanctions that exist for such pages, please keep an eye of this page, where users may request enforcement. Thanks. RGloucester — ☎ 21:43, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, please, we can use all the help we can get over there.. Dreadstar ☥ 01:35, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Please add a American English Editnotice to Pediatrics

Can an admin add the American English Editnotice to the Pediatrics page? There have been consistent problems with people adding British English and some debate about it on the talk page. Thanks! EoRdE6 (talk) 04:02, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

ANI abuse

Please help me. I am at my wits end. I make a report at ANI. I want to see it reviewed. Others report the same editor at ANI. Instead of reviewing the report, I have admins and Gamersgate minutae drawing and drawing and drawing off me, not because I am going around breaking the rules, but because they are getting entertainment out of me. They are bullying me. The report, the diffs of the editor, have not been discussed at all and the thread is now four pages long in my browser. Rather than review the diffs, I am being told by an admin that they are going to block me for WikiHounding, for having the gall to continue to post in a single thread and to make that thread about an editor who I have encountered 4 or maybe 5 times in as many months and literally pursued me to harass me.

I need help. I am not getting it from ANI. The bullying is making mew feel sick. I do not want to interact with anyu of the contributors again. But I cannot let them control the site contrary to its goals and purpose. I mean, please someone uninvolved help me where is the best place for this to go? I do not lick up to a deck of admins to shield me. I am me, all alone. I am not very important, but I have been wronged repeatedly by a prolific wrong doer. That puts a duty on me to report. I need help. I am only being attacked on ANI. ~ R.T.G 12:27, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Administrative backlog