Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:51, 5 September 2017

• 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 6 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 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 29 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 27 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 96 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 66 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 50 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 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 23 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 11 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 109 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 75 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 66 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 15 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

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Willfull and persistent disruption of Draft space by TakuyaMurata

• TakuyaMurata (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Algebra over a monad
• Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Cotensor product
• Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Nakano's vanishing theorem
• Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Tensor product of representations
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics/Archive/2016/Mar#Abstract_Geometry_creations_languishing_in_Draft_namespace
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics#Stale_Abstract_mathematic_Draft_pages.2C_again
• "Vandalism" reverts
• Where I dis-invite Takuya from my user talk
• "warning" me for "vandalism"
• Misplaced Pages:Deletion_review/Log/2017_August_15#Draft: Tensor product of representations
• Draft:Toric degeneration
• Draft:Specialization (algebraic geometry)

I've tried very patiently to work with this editor trying to convince them to clean up their old, unedited, esoteric, and frankly non-viable drafts. The contents read as copy paste definitions from Mathematics textbooks (though I cannot find the text in CopyVio search) that have sat for far too long not doing anything. I (in misguided wisdom) elected to exercise the WP:ATD option of Redirecting, and Taku has proceduraly objected on the grounds of "That's not exactly what this is". Previous discussions have suggested moving the pages to Taku's Userspace so that they can work on them, Redirecting the pages to sections of a larger article so that effort can be focused in one location to potentially get a WP:SPINOUT article, or numerous other alternatives to deletion. It takes a full on MFD to compel Taku let go of the page so I suspect some form of WP:OWN or Creation credit is the goal. Furthermore on July 27th, I formally dis-invited Taku from my talk page setting in place the remedies for WP:HARASS.

Now that Taku has elected to throw the "You're vandalising Misplaced Pages" by my redirecting Draft space "content" to the closest approximations and reverting citing vandalism I ask for the following:

1. That Taku be prohibited from reverting any redirection of Draft space content to a main space topic without first securing an affirmative consensus on an appropriate talk page.
2. That Taku be chastised for improperly using vandalism in the above reverts
3. That Taku should apologize to me for droping that warning on my page in line with the improper usage of "vandalism"
4. That Taku should be prohibited (i.e. ban) from creating any new Draft space pages until there are no draft page creations of theirs that are more than 6 months unedited and that are not redirects
5. That Taku be subject to these issues indefinitely with the option of appealing after 6 months (on 6 month re-appeal) when they show that they have remedied all pages under the above mentioned ban.
6. That Taku be blocked for coming back to my talk page after I had banned them.

Hasteur (talk) 12:33, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

• What I gather from your description of the situation is that you have chosen to boldly unilaterally redirect drafts, which TakuyaMurata created, to articles. They then restore the content by reverting your redirection. That seems acceptable, see Misplaced Pages:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle; you are free to raise the matter on the talk page of the drafts. You want them to gain consensus to revert your changes, when you have not established consensus for them yourself. That is a double standard. That aside, their description of your changes as vandalism is incorrect. We can correct that notion here; a block is not necessary for that, as they seem to have believed your edits were vandalism, which made posting to your talk page appropriate per WP:NOBAN. Though redirecting drafts is an accepted practice, I am not sure it is documented anywhere, the matter is arcane nonetheless. I believe this just concerns drafts TakuyaMurata created, if so, I would not oppose userfying them to their userspace. I oppose all six of your requests as undue based on what has been presented thus far, except #2 to a point, we should "inform" them rather than admonish them. — Godsy_CONT) 08:59, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  • @Godsy: Taku has explicitly rejected on multiple occasions moving these pages into draftspace userspace. So that option is out. Taku makes procedural objections of "It's not really that" or other tendentious arguments. In short, If Taku wanted to actually do something about these drafts (or merge their contents to mainspace, then he could in the copious amount of time that he's spending. Heck, I'd even give him a 3 month moratorium on sweeping up the drafts if he promised that at the end of that moratorium any drafts that he created that haven't been edited in 9 months are fair game for any editor to come in and apply an appropriate disposition (Moving to mainspace, Redirecting, Merge-Redirecting, CSD-Author) to get them off the Stale Non-AFC Drafts report. If the report is clean it removes some of the arguments for expanding CSD:G13 to include all Draftspace creations. If the page is redirected to a relatively close mainspace article, attention gets focused to mainspace (which is google searchable and provides benefit to wikipedia) and potentially we get a new article when there's enough content to viably have a WP:SPINOUT Hasteur (talk) 12:17, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
    • @Hasteur: Sure you can apply what you believe is an "appropriate disposition", but that does not mean your choice is the most appropriate action. Drafts currently do not have an expiration date. Stale Non-AFC Drafts is not something that needs to be cleared. I largely concur with Michael Hardy below. This is all I have to say. Best Regards, — Godsy_CONT) 20:18, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
• I can't speak to the specific merits, but I've seen any number of Taku's drafts turn up at DRV after a well-meaning editor tagged what looked like (per Hasteur) an unviable abandoned draft and Taku strongly objected. It's not a healthy dynamic. Mackensen (talk) 11:00, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
• I don't know what usages and concerns exist in the Draft namespace. Possibly that is why I don't know why the existence of these drafts would cause any problems. Could someone explain why it's a problem? Barring that, I don't see that these complaints against this user amount to anything. If there's really some reason to regard the existence of these drafts as a problem, might moving them to the User namespace solve it? Michael Hardy (talk) 17:53, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
• I've come across this issue mainly via DRV listings. It seems TakuyaMurata has created a swathe of tiny pages in draftspace about obscure mathematical and allied concepts, containing little more than an external link, a restatement of the title, or a few words. He has then resisted all attempts whatsoever to improve the situation, objecting as vociferously to any deletions as to any suggestion that he might, you know, want to expand the drafts he has rather than spewing out yet more of them.
  There is no benefit to the encyclopedia from having tiny non-searchable substubs in draft space. None. Taku needs to accept this and redirect the copious time he seems to have to argue about old substubs towards more constructive activities like researching and expanding some of them. Otherwise, they should be deleted. Stifle (talk) 12:43, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

@User:Michael Hardy I've offered to move the stubs to his userspace (specifically to a userpage he already has listing about 50 of the about 200) but he refused that. These pages are a Draft space management hassle representing a growing percentage of the 200 of the remaining 5500 abandoned non-AfC Draft pages. Frankly I can't figure out why he guards them so carefully, given he could just expand them or move the info onto one page or redirect or whatever. Legacypac (talk) 16:05, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

@Legacypac: To respond, I for one don't get the need to delete the legitimate drafts just because they are old. The figure 200 is misleading since most of them are redirects. I agree the draftspace has a lot of problematic pages. I'm not objecting to delete them. Am I correct to think your argument is it would be easier if there are no legtimate drafts in the draftspace so we can delete old pages indiscriminately? That logic does make at least some sense (although i think there is a better way.) -- Taku (talk) 23:35, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Only redirects after the community consensus compelled to give up your walled garden plots. Our argument is that you've created so many sub-stub pages in draft space that it's causing more problems both for patrollers who are looking for problematic pages and for those of us who like trying to get effort focused to namespace. Your reams of words to dilute and obstruct any meaningful progress on the topics (you'll argue to the end of the universe your right to keep the pages) instead of actually working on them to get them to mainspace gives little doubt as to your purpose here. Hasteur (talk) 03:36, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

For me, Draft:Faithfully flat descent doesn't strike to me as a sub-stub. How is that page a problem for "those of us who like trying to get effort focused to namespace". What is the real or hypothetical mechanism having draft pages prevents the editors from working on the mainspace? Hence, I think "patrollers who are looking for problematic pages" seems to be the heart of the matter; having non-problematic pages makes the patrolling harder. Obviously the answer is not to delete/redirect the non-problematic pages? Are you seriously seriously proposing we ease the search for problematic pages by removing non-problematic pages? -- Taku (talk) 14:07, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

To respond "gives little doubt as to your purpose here.", actually I have fairly solid reputation in editing math-related topics in the mainspace. I agree if a user edits only the draftspace and no of his/her drafts have promoted to the mainspace, then we may suspect on the user's motivation. I'm not that case here. -- Taku (talk) 08:43, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• Comment How many total math-related drafts created by Taku are there? How many of his drafts are now mainspace articles? If this is a specific issue about Taku's use of draft space, analysis of editing history should give clear evidence as to whether he has an unreasonable number of drafts. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:35, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • To be clear, I expect Hasteur or Legacypac to have some data here; I'm not expecting TakuyaMurata to produce data to defend himself. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:44, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
    • @Power~enwiki: According to XTools, TakuyaMurata created 113 drafts. Of these, 42 have been deleted, so we have 71 current drafts. This does not include redirects (which would include those moved to mainspace or redirected based on consensus at an MfD). There are a good 106 of those, with 42 deleted (many via G7). . I think 71 drafts being retained in draftspace, many unedited for years, is clearly excessive. ~ Rob₁₃ 19:49, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
      • Thanks! I agree something needs to be done here, but don't know exactly what yet. I think User:BU Rob13's proposal below is a good start, but it may not be sufficient to resolve this issue. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:56, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
        • I'm not opposed to further restrictions; I just think my idea is a good start to at least prevent the problem from getting worse. ~ Rob₁₃ 20:08, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

From a brief glance, my guess is that there are 20 or so drafts that can be turned into mainspace articles, and 50 or so that need to be deleted or redirected to a more general topic. Draft:Graded Hopf algebra and Draft:Nakano's vanishing theorem are two obvious examples that should be combined into a more general article. Diffs by Taku like are extremely concerning; Taku does not own the articles he creates in draft-space, and he should not expect them to stay there indefinitely (). Power~enwiki (talk) 20:35, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

See also this proposition where after 22 days Taku unilaterally decided to pull back a page in mainspace that other editors had contributed to to that clearly violates the purpose of Draft space, the collaberative editing environment, and is the most blatant violation of WP:OWN that I can imagine. @Power~enwiki, BU Rob13, Legacypac, Stifle, Michael Hardy, Jcc, Godsy, Mackensen, BD2412, and Thincat:: Can we move forward with something that acutally improves wikipedia instead of the repeated hills we have to needlessly debate over and over on? Hasteur (talk) 13:18, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Also presenting the case of Taku's disruption of Misplaced Pages:Requested moves/Technical requests for which they try to override an administrator's Move protection on pages promoted to main space that, while not 100% perfect, are viable. Notice how Taku does not contact RHaworth when requesting the reversal. Each time a new content or conduct venue is introduced in an attempt to fix these complaints, Taku seizes on it as the next life raft to save their walled gardens. ~~

Proposal: Limited restriction on use of draftspace

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

Let's propose something concrete that can at least control the issue going forward. I propose that TakuyaMurata is restricted from creating new pages in the draft namespace when five or more pages remain in the draft namespace which were created by TakuyaMurata, excluding any redirects. This seems perfectly sensible; no reasonable editor has more than five work-in-progress drafts at one time. Complete something before you start something new. ~ Rob₁₃ 17:50, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. ~ Rob₁₃ 17:51, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support some kind of warning regarding ownership behavior on draft articles is also necessary, IMO. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:35, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support, however this doesn't fix the problem of his existing pages. I'm not 100% certain, but I think they haven't created any new pages so this is effectively a wash as it doesn't do anything about the already festering piles in Draft space. Hasteur (talk) 20:37, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • @Hasteur: He made one as recently as late July. ~ Rob₁₃ 01:07, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
• Comment re: "no reasonable editor has more than five work-in-progress drafts at one time" - I have something along the lines of 1,740 open drafts at this time. They are generally attached to specific projects, and I consider this entirely reasonable. However, in the case of this specific editor, having created intransigent drafts, I would support the proposed limitation. bd2412 T 20:46, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose  Seems to be an attempt to discourage a valuable contributor over a non-problem.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:21, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. The assumption that you can have more than five works-in-progress at any time is absurd. And the idea that there should be some specific time limit to how long something can be a work-in-progress directly contradicts WP:DEADLINE. This whole idea of forced cleanup of drafts seems like a solution in search of a problem. Also, User:TakuyaMurata has been an extremely prolific and valuable editor, writing a large number of articles in a highly technical field over many years. I'll admit that his use of draft space is somewhat unorthodox, and he does seem to digging his heels in about userspace vs. draftspace. But, on balance, we need more people like him. Let us not lose sight of our main purpose here, and that's to produce good content in mainspace. Hewing to somebody's ideals of how draftspace should be organized, pales in comparison. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:36, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • How does refusing to incorporate a draft that's been inactive since 2014 into mainspace contribute to good content in mainspace? ~ Rob₁₃ 01:07, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Just to clarify, I'm refusing to work on draft pages in the specified time frame. Misplaced Pages is not my full-time job and for instance, I'm currently attending a workshop and it is very inconvenient for me to edit Misplaced Pages. Why do I need to be asked to finish them today? Why can I finish it in 2020 or 2030? Most of my drafts do get promoted to the mainspace; so there is no such pill of never-completed-drafts. Yes, I agree some drafts turned out to be not-so-great ideas and I can agree to delete those. (I admit I might have not be reasonable in some cases and I promise that will change.) The accusation that I don't allow any deletion is false. -- Taku (talk) 09:41, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
      • With absolutely no respect, Taku has known about this for over a year and a half (March of 2016, June of this year) reminders at WikiProject Mathematics talk page. Taku's pleas of "I have no time to fix these" could have been entertained if this were in the first year, but this is yet another hallmark of playing for time until the furor dies down. Even the statement "Why can I finish it in 2020 or 2030?" shows the "Play for time" mentality of "someday getting around to it". If progress is being made, then pressure can come off. If no progress is being made and delay tactics are the order of the day, then the writing is on the wall. Hasteur (talk) 16:24, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose the suggested restriction. Any restriction on the use of draft space should apply to everyone, not just Taku. The examples given above of alleged disruption are remarkably unpersuasive to me. Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Algebra over a monad is the first substantive case put forward. If anything, the disruption is being caused by editors improperly taking ownership of draft space by trying to enforce restrictions that are not supported by policies or guidelines. Thincat (talk) 07:10, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose - The draftspace is an appropriate place to draft content and there is not and should not be a limit on the amount of drafts an editor can create there unless they are creating a truly unreasonable amount of poor quality drafts (i.e. hundreds). I completely disagree that "no reasonable editor has more than five work-in-progress drafts at one time" and oppose any sanction on individual because of largely unnecessary cleanup. Either everyone should be limited to five drafts, or no one should bar especially egregious behavior (which I do not believe has been demonstrated here), and I'm certain such a proposal for all wouldn't pass. I concur with Unscintillating. — Godsy_CONT) 07:22, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm not convinced that anything should be in draft space as we managed fine before it existed. But, in so far as draft space has a point, it's that it's a scratchpad that we should be relaxed about because it's not mainspace. Introducing petty, ad hoc rules is therefore not appropriate and would be contrary to WP:CREEP. Andrew D. (talk) 08:20, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support per Rob. Stifle (talk) 08:42, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
• Comment not a bad idea, but maybe restricts him from useful editing, which I commend him for. Leads me to an alternative proposal below. Legacypac (talk) 10:57, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
• oppose per Andrew D. above and Roy below. We are trying to solve a problem that I'm not sure exists. It feels very controlling. Hobit (talk) 17:51, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support per Rob, displaying ownership of draft articles. jcc (tea and biscuits) 11:42, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose as the proposal doesn't address the one concern that actually seems to be a potential problem, that of ownership. VQuakr (talk) 22:02, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support changing from eariler comment and alternate proposal that failed to get traction. The ongoing disruption is too much. It's a game to him, in his own words . A game that is more fun than content creation. Place the restriction. Legacypac (talk) 14:48, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Proposal: Limited restrictions/topic ban

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

Taku be restricted to voting once and making one followup comment on any MfD concerning a Draft he started. He is topic banned from starting a WP:DRV or requesting a WP:REFUND to restore any deleted or redirected Draft he started. He is also prohibited from starting any more RFC or similar process or discussion on how Draft space is managed.

• Support as proposer. These very narrow restrictions will cut out the drama but let Taku continue productively editing. The old sub stub drafts will eventually either get improved or deleted in due course. Legacypac (talk) 10:57, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

In WP:Deletion review/Log/2017 August 15#Draft:Tensor product of representations, which Taku started, overturn is being rather well supported, despite your multiple comments. Is this the sort of discussion you are seeking to ban? Thincat (talk) 11:55, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

That is cherrypicking ONE discussion. See the many examples at the top of this thread. This narrow restriction should solve the disruption. Legacypac (talk) 12:01, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

It was the only DRV "cherry" listed up there. For the four MFDs listed (1) one Taku comment agreeing delete (this was an incredibly poor example of "disruption"); (2) multiple Taku comments which were not persuasive; (3) two Taku comments (and two from you) resulting in keep (!); (4) multiple Taku comments followed by redirect rather than delete and now subject of the DRV. Thincat (talk) 12:31, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support as Wikipedia_talk:Drafts#RfC:_on_the_proper_use_of_the_draftspace, Wikipedia_talk:Drafts#RfC:_the_clarification_on_the_purpose_of_the_draftspace, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics/Archive/2017/Jul#Stale_Abstract_mathematic_Draft_pages.2C_again, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics/Archive/2016/Mar#Abstract_Geometry_creations_languishing_in_Draft_namespace, and numerous MFDs and DRVs Taku's repeated comments ammount to filibustering and nitpicking in what I precieve as an attempt to dillute any consensus to effectively nothing that can be overturned with the whim of a cat. If the community has to respong 50 times on a MFD we're going to be spending 100 times as many bytes arguing about the content than was ever spent building the content. Taku appears to have the intellectual exercise of debating content rather than fixing things that have been brought to their attention as lacking. Hasteur (talk) 12:43, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - I have not seen any behavior I deem inappropriate (i.e. contrary to policies or guidelines) by TakuyaMuratad, and I cannot support any sanction against them until I do. — Godsy_CONT) 01:30, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
• Comment: If I'm allowed to point out (which this proposal will prohibit), it is ironic that my behavior is considered disruptive while an attempt for the rogue so-called clean-up of the draftspace isn't. There is no consensus that my draftpages (perhaps all) need to be gone. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics#Draft:Faithfully_flat_descent.E2.80.8E for example for the position of the wikiproject math: they don't see my draft pages to be causing a problem. Thus I'm not working against the "consensus". I pretty much prefer to just edit things I know the best, rather than engaging in this type of the battle. I know this type of the battle is wearing to many content-focused editors and many of them stop contributing. Obviously that's the tactics employed here. That is the true disruption that is very damaging to Misplaced Pages the whole. -- Taku (talk) 03:48, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
• Counter-proposal: I can agree to deal with some of sub-stubs (expand or delete them); it helps if you can present me a list of "problematic" draftpages started by me. They usually take me 5 min say to create and I had no idea it would cause this much controversy. While I don't see a need for us to spend some min to delete/redirect them (leaving them is less time-consuming), hopefully this is a good compromise. -- Taku (talk) 04:01, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Taku, the time for your going through and cleaning up the pages was a year ago. Your repeated obstinancy this past month is disruptive. Want to prove to the community you actually want to fix these pages? Fix them yourself. You've spent thousands bytes defending these festering piles of bytes but not one single byte actually fixing the problem. Fix the problem and the issue resolves itself. Hasteur (talk) 11:29, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Wow, just wow. This proves you're more interested in the disruption for the sake of disruptions rather than working out some compromise. Anyway, my offer is still on the table. You promise to cease the disruptive behaviors for once and all and provide me a list of short-stubs you want me to work on; then I can try to meet you as much as I can. -- Taku (talk) 12:38, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
      • In no way did I make that promise. What I agreed to was you clean up the pages so they're under 6 months unedited, then I won't have anything to poke you about. You do that and I will lay off because I set a personal minimum of 6 months to consider if the page needs to have corrective action taken on it. Hasteur (talk) 13:50, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
        • You imposing the restriction like that, disregarding WP:DEADLINE, is called a disruption. -- Taku (talk) 14:08, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose attempts to restrict access to WP:DRV. Access to DRV by any editor has important governance and symbolic aspects. Taku does not have a history of disruption at DRV. DRV closers and clerks are well capable and practiced in speedy closes when required. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:21, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

• Your rose-colored glasses should not hide the fact that DRV has no process for speedy closes.  The DRV started by Taku is a great example of a failure of the hit-or-miss application of DRV speedy-closes.  Nor is there a process for corrective feedback when a speedy close is improperly applied.  Unscintillating (talk) 13:27, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

• Due probably to its much more tightly constrained scope, DRV management is much simpler than ANI's. DRV should not be managed from here. Bad speedy closes can be taken up at the closer's talk page. My experience is quite positive (eg). There is also WT:DRV, which is very well watched. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:43, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

• Picking up on part of your comment, if we had "DRV clerks" that could be a path forward.  Unscintillating (talk) 13:32, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. Arguing about the right solution to the problem is silly because nobody has yet demonstrated that there is a problem in the first place. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:37, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
• oppose Just doesn't seem needed. Yes he's verbose. But it's a two-way street. Hobit (talk) 18:11, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support he has created all these stub drafts, and if only he'd spend as much time working on them as he did arguing for them to be kept then we'd all be much better for it. Clearly there is enough disruption to prove a point going on here to warrant some kind of action. jcc (tea and biscuits) 11:43, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose disagreement with an editor's position is not a good justification for banning them from policy discussions. VQuakr (talk) 15:54, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose the reason I support action against this editor isn't related to his objections to deletion of drafts, it's his objection to attempts to move the content into mainspace. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:33, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:POT and WP:SAUCE. Andrew D. (talk) 19:20, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Result of DRV

Note that WP:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Tensor product of representations was under review in parallel with this discucssion. The original MfD close of redirect was overturned earlier today. It seems pretty obvious to me that if an action was overturned upon review, asking that somebody be sanctioned for protesting that action is unwarrented. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:30, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

• A proper DRV process follows WP:Deletion review/Purpose.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:22, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
• Hardly a typical DRV conducted during an ANi where editors with a point to make took over. It's fine the page with be deleted again in 6 months after it goes stale again. I urge to keep voters to focus on improving these pages so there is no abandoned pages to worry about. Legacypac (talk) 00:31, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
  • To say the obvious, you don't need to be worried about abandoned drafts. There is no evidence that abandoned drafts are problems solely because they are abandoned. What is the case is that among the abandoned drafts, there are a lot of problematic drafts; an editor starts a draft on a non-notable topic and left the project. But there have been a few good abandoned drafts and they should be preserved. -- Taku (talk) 06:32, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

"But there have been a few good abandoned drafts and they should be preserved" which is precisely what Legacypac is doing, submitting drafts he sees as having potential back to AfC. jcc (tea and biscuits) 15:00, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

• See also: Draftspace cleanup regarding the behavior of Legacypac. -- Taku (talk) 05:18, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Draftspace cleanup

Proposed topic ban for Legacypac

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

Part of the problem above is the rapid-fire MfD nominations from Legacypac, even while the AN discussion above is still open. Legacy hasn't significantly slowed down his process bludgeoning at MfD since the discussion last month at Misplaced Pages talk:Miscellany for deletion#Problem of too many hopeless pages sent to MfD, in which SmokeyJoe proposed that Legacy be limited to 5 MfD nominations per day. I propose that this restriction be enacted as a topic ban in the hopes that Legacy will improve the quality of his nominations (which are as a rule quite terrible). VQuakr (talk) 21:50, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Before proposing such a thing, clean up your own personal attack. Until someone gets around to closing the G13 expansion, cleanup will continue. Anyway, G13 will be useless on Taku's abandoned Drafts. He'll immediately request a WP:REFUND (a safe prediction since he goes to DRV when the pages are deleted at MfD). Legacypac (talk) 21:59, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

• I think Taku should move all his drafts into his userspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:52, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, I was wondering myself why they didn't do that if there was controversy about them being in Draftspace. Taku? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:43, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

(I'm he by the way). Because that would defeat the purpose of the draftspace. It's not like my draft pages never get promoted to the mainspace; they do by me or others. Policy-wise, there is nothing with them. Some minority editors don't like the drafts are not the reason to remove them from the draftspace. -- Taku (talk) 05:13, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

So you have a problem with people touching your drafts; why not move them to your userspace where they'll be left alone? -FASTILY 05:46, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I have a problem with the editors disregarding the policies like WP:DEADLINE. I don't mind a well-intentioned attempt to develop the content. I have a problem with an attempt for undeveloping (e.g., deletion) the content. -- Taku (talk) 14:04, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose as pointless because once the G13 expansion occurs (which it will), this won't be an issue. This is an issue of policy lagging behind community standards, not of behavior. ~ Rob₁₃ 05:03, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
  • One (or few more) user's behaviors do not equate to the community standard. I'm asking some sanction because their behavior do not seem to reflect the community consensus nor policy. -- Taku (talk) 05:13, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
    • And given the wide support for the expansion of G13, you're incorrect. ~ Rob₁₃ 05:34, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
      • No G13 is about streamlining the deletion process; it's about the process not about the use of the draftspace, which is now discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Drafts#What_draftspace_is_not. -- Taku (talk) 06:20, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - per BU Rob 13. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:32, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. Premature. -FASTILY 05:46, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose ridiculous. jcc (tea and biscuits) 14:55, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Another disruption

See User talk:TakuyaMurata. We need some kind of an admin intervention to stop their disruption. For example, my drafts are not abandoned. -- Taku (talk) 09:03, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Currently the community consensus on low-quality drafts that have been stale for 6 months are abandoned. The solution to avoid having stale unworked drafts deleted is to a)work on improving them, b)keep them in your userspace. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:21, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

The citation please. Also, here is the better solution c) do nothing to drafts that have some potential and do not have some obvious problems like copyright bio or being about non-notable topics. This actually saves everyone's time (and in fact is the preferred solution.) -- Taku (talk) 13:58, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Here you go. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:22, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

The RfC asks to expand G13 to non-AfC drafts, which I even supported. It is unrelated to the inclusion criterion for the draftspace. There is still no community consensus that abandoned drafts are problems solely because they are abandoned (only that there are many problematic drafts among abandoned drafts) and drafts started by me are not even abandoned. -- Taku (talk) 14:51, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

And do you agree c) is the better solution? -- Taku (talk) 14:52, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

If you cant understand that that RFC means any draft unworked for 6 months is likely to be speedy-deleted I cant help you. There is nothing restricting you from making new drafts, only that if you do not improve them and abandon them they will be deleted sooner rather than later. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:02, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

@TakuyaMurata:--Please read WP:CSD#G13 which has been explicitly modified post-RFC.And avoid a I don't hear it behaviour.Winged Blades of Godric 15:25, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

You need to distinguish between how to delete and what to delete. The expansion of G13 simply gives more convenient ways to delete old pages. The RfC specifically did not ask whether if we want to delete old pages. The distinction is subtle but is real and significant; perhaps this needs to be explicitly noted. -- Taku (talk) 19:35, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Here is another instance of Legacypac (obviously the page is not a test page). I don't understand how behavior like this can go unpunished. They have the great jobs of deleting problematic pages in the draftspace. That doesn't give him to go above the rules. -- Taku (talk) 19:31, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

That page has NO CONTENT which is a standard reason to CSD G2 Test. Legacypac (talk) 19:33, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I suggest you read G2 again. It applies to a page with an editor testing editing functionality. Do you seriously claim I was testing th editing functionality? -- Taku (talk) 19:37, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I try to help save your little stub by moving it to your userspace. What gives you the right to call my move "vandalism"? Legacypac (talk) 19:50, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Becuase the removal of legitimate content is vandalism. It's that simple. If you suspect the topic is not notable for instance, the right place to discuss it at MfD. -- Taku (talk) 20:53, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

A yet another instance of applying an incorrect CSD criterion: you don't get what you want? You need to get over it! -- Taku (talk) 19:51, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Time Out!

I've been watching this for a while (and participating a little too). One thing that's obvious to me is that neither side is 100% wrong, and neither side is 100% right. And, equally, nether side is ever going to convince the other to change their opinion. At this point, people are just venting. As Mackensen said, It's not a healthy dynamic. This is bad for the project. We need to get some closure here, and that's not going to happen in the current forum. I recommend we take this to some neutral third party, have both sides make their case, and everybody agree that whatever comes out of that they will comply with the decision. I'm not sure if WP:ARB or WP:M is the better process, but likely one of those. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:57, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

With respect, but this has been going on for over a week actively and simmering for over a month. 3rd Opinions, RFCs, MFDs, RMs, and many other forua of evaluating community consensus is clear: the creations are not acceptable. I am attempting to use every community method of resolving conduct and content disputes prior to going before the most disruptive form of dispute resolution so that the enablers can be disproven when asked "Did you try alternative form of dispute resolution". Hasteur (talk) 01:54, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Numerous MfD discussions contradicts your claim. -- Taku (talk) 11:00, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

One Admin has removed G13 tags on five Taku substubs (some with zero content) so that is something. Note I'm just tagging as I find them in the list not targeting math pages specifically. . Legacypac (talk) 02:36, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

It's a sense this is time-out but I'm about to take an intercontinental flight so I will not have Internet accesses for quite a long time. I'm just hoping the plane Misplaced Pages exists when I'm back on the earth. The matter is actually very simple: one side is trying to destroy Misplaced Pages and I'm merely trying to delay it as much as possible. My English is quite limited and that might be a reason I didn't describe the situation. -- Taku (talk) 10:58, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages does not need you. Misplaced Pages will still exist once your back on earth. We are not trying to destroy Misplaced Pages (despite your numerous personal attacks to the contrary). We are trying to clean up a portion of Misplaced Pages-adjecent space for which you have been reminded and nagged multiple times. That you can't be bothered to deal with issues in over a year leaves little imagination that you don't see any purpose in working on them. Hasteur (talk) 16:55, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Actually Misplaced Pages needs editors like me who supply content but anyway yes in your wikigame I'm dispensable. To respond, the cleanup does not have a policy-wise support if it has supports from some users. So, people like me would see clean-up as a disstruction; see above, I'm not alone in this view. -- Taku (talk) 17:02, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

No, Misplaced Pages does not NEED you. Misplaced Pages doesn't need me, and for great effect, Misplaced Pages doesn't need Jimbo Wales. No editor is indespensible. If you think that content creation, or potential content creation, will excuse you from behaviorial norms, you are in for a very rude awakening as the community at large and ArbCom have (at various times) banned and blocked editors who were a net negative to the community. Hasteur (talk) 22:57, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion for a compromise

Keeping in mind that A good compromise is when both parties are dissatisfied, let me suggest a possible way forward. The goal of one camp is to get these articles out of draft space. The goal of the other camp is to not have any particular schedule imposed on completing them, nor moving them to user space. What if we created WP:WikiProject Mathematics/Drafts/ and moved them to be subpages of that? It would get them out of sight of the people who want to clean up draft space. It would get them into the sight of the people who are most qualified to nurture them. And, they would be subject only to whatever policies the wikiproject decided were appropriate (which might well be that they never expire). Would this work? -- RoySmith (talk) 13:06, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

• Absolutely. Legacypac (talk) 13:36, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
• +1.Happily!With the provisos (1) and (3) of Hasteur.Otherwise reject!Winged Blades of Godric 13:48, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
• Cute and creative. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 14:01, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
• Anything that would stop this non-constructive bickering has my support.--Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 16:36, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
• Accept with provisos: 1. Taku is not allowed to move things back to Draft namespace after they have been sent to the Mathematics draft bullpen. 2. Only pages that are not ready for mainspace get sent to this bullpen. 3. The Mathematics project endeavors to work on these pages and after some timeframe of not being able to nurture them to the point that they can be stand alone, they be nominated for deletion. The way the proposal reads simply shifts the pile of bits from one location to annother without any stick at the far end to elicit the improvement of mainspace by the content. This has already been done previously when WP:Abandoned Drafts was closed down and absorbed by Drafts. Hasteur (talk) 16:51, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: "A good compromise is when both parties are dissatisfied", and therefore the sides of the conflict should not have the veto right; and in particular, the provisos above need not be accepted; they tend to shift the point from the middle to one end. Rather, "subject only to whatever policies the wikiproject decided". Boris Tsirelson (talk) 17:03, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

With respect, Your proposal only creates yet another walled garden for Taku to be disruptive in. My provisos are actually in line with generally accepted processes. We have a tool already available in CSD:G13 to deal with Taku's pages, but I would prefer not to have to use that lever to get improvement. Hasteur (talk) 17:33, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Also would not the best compromise be one in which both parties are satisfied? I do not agree that a single wikiproject gets to decide that they can keep embryonic pages that "may one day" be expanded. Wikiproject space is not indexed so pages there do not help further the purpose of Misplaced Pages (WP:5P1). Taku gets what he wants by getting to keep the pages (for some duration), Legacypac and I get what we want by ensuring that the creations are actually improving Misplaced Pages instead of being perpetual used bits, and Misplaced Pages as a whole gets what it wants in content that an average reader can use. Hasteur (talk) 17:39, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

As for me, you are not less insistent than Taku. Maybe even more. Well, naturally, you look the right side in your own eyes. No wonder. I guess, Taku does, as well (but is now on a flight). Boris Tsirelson (talk) 18:26, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

• Question - What is the advantage of moving the drafts to a new Wikiproject draft space, as opposed to moving them into Taku's userspace, which seems to me by far the simplest and most appropriate solution. Articles can be moved from userspace into articlspace as easily as they can from draftspace. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:30, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm attempting to find a solution which is acceptable to everybody. Apparently, moving them to userspace has already been rejected by one party, so I'm exploring other options. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:53, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Recall also the answer given at the start: "It would get them into the sight of the people who are most qualified to nurture them." Boris Tsirelson (talk) 19:10, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

• Is WP:NOTWEBHOST policy or not? There are many textbooks with esoteric details that could be used to generate hundreds of pre-stub drafts. Encouraging their indefinite storage undermines NOTWEBHOST because the community has no practical way to say it is ok to store pointless notes on mathematics, but not on, say, K-pop. Johnuniq (talk) 00:59, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

True. But "policies the wikiproject decided" could be such a practical way. WP Math can decide what is pointless in math. Do you expect that another wikiproject will decide to store pointless notes on K-pop? Boris Tsirelson (talk) 04:38, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

And on the other hand, if indeed WP:NOTWEBHOST should restricts the use of the draftspace, then the restriction should be formulated clearly in draftspace-related policies. For now it is not, and the position of Hasteur exceeds even the guidelines of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 04:47, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that some interpretation of WP:NOTWEBHOST contradicts some interpretation of WP:NODEADLINE. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 05:16, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Should the WP:PORN project be the arbiter of whether sub-drafts of pornography articles are retained indefinitely? What if they wanted to upload a hundred sub-stubs each based on the name and photograph of a non-notable porn star? Relying on WP:LOCALCONSENSUS is not a reasonable way to run Misplaced Pages. It is important to uphold the principle of WP:NOTWEBHOST and discourage the indefinite storage of things some contributors like. Per not bureaucracy, this noticeboard is not bound by the details that are or are not covered in the text at WP:NOTWEBHOST. Johnuniq (talk) 05:26, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

OK. If so, yes, this noticeboard can make a precedent decision against Taku. In this case it is desirable to complement draftspace-related policies accordingly. Alternatively, this noticeboard can accept the proposed compromise. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 05:35, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

But now I see there a modification of RoySmith's idea by Johnuniq: do keep them on the project space, but combined into a single page. Really? Boris Tsirelson (talk) 08:47, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

The application of WP:NOTWEBHOST rests on vacuous grounds, since the most page views of these drafts are caused by the janitors and their employed bots, so no essential web hosting takes place at all. Purgy (talk) 09:10, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't see WP:NOTWEBHOST applying at all. The content we're talking about is clearly intended to be used for writing future wikipedia articles. The point of contention is not the intended use of the material, but the speed at which those articles get written.

Even if "not webhost" is indeed not an apt name for that policy, the problem behind the policy is real: in order to be a healthy organism, Misplaced Pages needs both digestive system and excretory system! We do not like a precedent decision that makes it possible for advocacy groups to avoid the excretory system. This is the point of Johnuniq (as far as I understand this). Boris Tsirelson (talk) 15:57, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

@Tsirel: of 04:47, 27 August 2017: That's a good one. I perceive that as a personal attack. In no way did I deal with that defunct sub-project. I'm applying WP:Drafts which is policy, instead of a cherry-picked project that was absorbed into the Draft namespace. It's very simple. The drafts are abandoned because Taku hasn't done anything about them in over two years after having attention brought to an appropriate WikiProject (for which they participated in) (May 2016, June 2017). Taku contributed precisely zero bytes to improve them, however will spend thousands of bytes arguing that they should be able to keep them. Hasteur (talk) 16:40, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

You do not own a production factory called draftspace.  Yet you want the creative-content production of draftspace to meet your production standards.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:14, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

A personal attack? Just the (true) statement that your position exceeds even the guidelines of something? I did not know it is defunct, I did not know you apply something else. But even if I were knowing that, would it be a personal attack? As for me, this is your nervous overreaction. (Now blame me for the word "nervous" too...) Boris Tsirelson (talk) 16:59, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

(Better late than never...) "Discussion of behavior in an appropriate forum (e.g. user's talk page or Misplaced Pages noticeboard) does not in itself constitute a personal attack." (policy) Boris Tsirelson (talk) 20:11, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

@Tsirel: I know the type of these editors. They are here to play a game; the ultimate goal of it is the destruction and getting the users blocked. They want you to get upset and make mistakes to get you banned. I'm a target since I have kept evading their attacks; so I became the last boss of the sort. I guess I'm not completely innocent; a part of me must enjoy counter-attacking their attacks (It can be quite more fun than writing terse math articles). This is just an online game a lot of Misplaced Pages users play nowadays. I know the game is a distraction and that's why I agreed with the proposed compromise. -- Taku (talk) 21:50, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

@Taku: You would be best advised to stop commenting on the motivations and characters of the opposing editors and start dealing with the actual issues involved, because this has been going on for quite a while now, and I can sense that some admins might be close to dealing out some NPA blocks, if only to shut it down. Boris, at least, made an effort to find a compromise, albeit one that didn't fly, but it's you, Taku, who is at the center of this, and therefore it's you who is going to have to give way in some fashion or another, because your failure to do so, your digging your feet in with continued rejections of all proposals has, in my estimation, become disruptive to the smooth operation of the encyclopedia. That being the case, it's no longer going to matter who is "right" and who is "wrong", someone is heading for a block, and the prime candidate would appear to be you. You're out here practically alone, with a number of editors aligned against you, which is not a great position to hold in a noticeboard discussion. Continue holding out and don't compromise if you want to take the risk that no admin is going to block you, or start to actually talk to the other editors and find some acceptable common ground -- the choice is yours, and yours alone. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:42, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure how I'm on the path for the block, reading from the above and below. Anyway, for the record, I have already agreed with the Roy Smith's proposed compromise that we put the draftpages at the subpage of the wikiproject math. It seems it is the other side that it never accepts anything other than total capitulation. -- Taku (talk) 07:48, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 07:54, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I've given you my view of the situation which, despite the comment of an editor below that it was "perfectly biased", was, in fact, a neutral and unbiased take on the matter. Only time now will tell if it was correct, but certainly if Taku continues his escalation to personal attacks, it would seem to be more likely than not. Good luck with that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:05, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

• support as written (not with addendums). Arg, this whole thing is silly. Both sides are, IMO, out of line. There is no need for these articles to sit in draft space for months and months. But there is also no reason for anyone to care if they do (yes, I've heard the reasons on both sides and yes I still think both are wrongheaded). This solves the problems both claim exist (draft space being to "messy" and giving the drafts a home outside of user space where others are likely to find and help). So let's run with it. Hobit (talk) 18:34, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Copy of all content in a single page

I downloaded the wikitext (minus irrelevant stub templates etc.) from all current Draft pages created by TakuyaMurata, and appended it to User:TakuyaMurata/DraftsUser:Johnuniq/TakuyaMurata's single page draftpage which already existed (skip the initial list of links to drafts to see what I added). Drafts which are currently redirects were not included. TakuyaMurata of course is welcome to revert my edit if wanted, in which case the content can be seen at permalink. If nothing else, the single page allows easy browsing of the content. I should have used a level-one heading for each copy, but everything else is probably ok. Johnuniq (talk) 11:43, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Now headings are level-one. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 13:06, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

(in an airport with a patchy connection) I object to the use of a single draft page. See my sandbox page, which I use for my own private drafting use. The draft pages I started are supposed to belong to the community; that is, why I object to put them into my user-page. I can live with the proposal to place draft pages in the wikiproject math page; this way, they are still not tied to me and can be edited by the others. I have a lot to say on the proper use of the draftspace, but I will not repeat the here. As noted above, WP:NOTWEBHOST is not applicable since it's about the non-encyclopedic content. Are in the agreement? -- Taku (talk) 16:27, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

To heck with Taku this is absurd. see below:

Propose 1 week block

Only a block is going to stop the never ending disruption of draft cleanup that he continues to spread to pages far and wide. . Nothing will satisfy Taku ever. In a week the push will be over and he can come back and hopefully make useful controbutions. Legacypac (talk) 19:00, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

As above, I have expressed my agreement with the proposed compromise and so I have to be blocked then??? -- Taku (talk) 20:54, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Now Edit warring to delete a redirect and wholesale modifying my talk page posts. Legacypac (talk) 21:25, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

You complained about the broken links so I tried to fix them; it's hardly the modification. -- Taku (talk) 21:40, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Regretfully Oppose Part of the issue here is that I'm not a abstract Geometry/Mathematics expert so I can't judge alone what is notable and what is not. To block a user and then immediately proceed to delete pages so that they cannot object will only set up the case for compassionate Refunds on the grounds that Taku wasn't able to contribute to the proceedings. If Taku has the opportunity to contribute, but does not that's a silent acceptance of the proposal. If they can't respond that smacks of a star chamber. Hasteur (talk) 23:03, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Taku should not be so disruptive, but the issue was sure to be ignited when drafts were nominated for deletion. However, 1 they do not have to be nominated, 2 they do not have to be deleted, and 3 they can be restored at WP:REFUND request. However I will also note that putting it in userspace is a much better option. Don't expect others to stumble across the draft and improve it. Instead Taku should ask at a Wikiproject to see if there are others willing to assist, and then it does not matter if it is userspace or draft space. I would also oppose a separate Mathematics draft space, as that would still accumulate stagnant drafts. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:33, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Removal of Personal attack

TakuyaMurata has been warned by many editors including recently by Beyond My Ken above at 23:42, 27 August 2017 (UTC) to stop making statements regarding the motivations of editors who are attempting to secure compliance with standard operating practices of Misplaced Pages. As such Taku made a bald faced personal attack on those who are trying to clean up draftspace on the Mathematics wikiproject page. I have reverted it citing the warning. I request that an Administrator give a final warning to TakuyaMurata for failure to adhere to the Civility policy and "No Personal Attacks" policy as the attacks and inuendo poison the consensus building arguments and fracture the community into an "Us vs Them" situation. Hasteur (talk) 14:22, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

In his own words why he is doing this, and another attack. Legacypac (talk) 14:30, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I also name TimothyRias as complicit in twice restoring Taku's personal attack on the above page. What is worse? Removing a personal attack or disruptively restoring the attack repeatedly? Hasteur (talk) 14:52, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

To answer your question: 1). You simply should not be removing comments in any conflict in which you are directly involved. If you feel that a some comment is a personal attack against yourself, go through through the proper channels, and do not remove it yourself. TR 14:58, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Policy absolutely supports removing personal attacks against you. User:TimothyRias needs to be trouted for edit warring to restore disruptive nonsense. Legacypac (talk) 15:15, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Both of you need to take a long hard look in the mirror, and think about why people might get the idea that you are trolling. Maybe take a wikation?TR 17:34, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose to the need of a final warning. I consider the valuation expressed in Taku's reverted comment as obvious, and I myself share with others the opinon that the sanitizing engineers act above reasonable levels. The reverted comment contained to my measures neither insults, nor threats, nor innuendo, nor any general attack beyond tellingly describing specific behaviour. As regards the cited comment ("warning") by Beyond My Ken, this is in my perception a perfectly biased, non-neutral view of the facts, totally neglecting any possibility of a compromise, fully in line with Hasteur. Purgy (talk) 17:58, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Request for administrator involvement

This thread has been going on for about 2 weeks now, with no sign of it being settled between the disputants in the near future. Could an uninvolved admin please weigh in on it, in whatever fashion is deemed appropriate, in order to put it out of its misery? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:11, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

But don't we have Roy Smith's compromise? I'm not sure what admin actions are needed (block? Why?). Regarding personal attacks, I should note that my motivations have also been questioned time to time; e.g., starting a DVR is viewed a disruption rather than checking of the procedures are followed correctly. -- Taku (talk) 21:55, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

A compromise which has been accepted by one side in the dispute, but not by (all those in) the other is not a viable compromise. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:04, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken is correct (actually, two of the three primary players here have accepted it, but not all three). If we don't have buy-in from everybody, it's not going to fly. The next thing I would suggest is to ask three uninvolved admins to write a joint closing statement. That's often a good way to get closure. Whatever they decide, everybody has to live with. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:18, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I have made this request here -- RoySmith (talk) 13:09, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oh. Rats. OK, I edit conflicted with people (including RoySmith) saying my suggestion isn't feasible. I'll post it here anyway.

  You want an uninvolved admin's opinion? OK. This has been personalized too much to lead to a suitable solution right now. So after reading this whole thing, I plan on was thinking of doing the following, if there aren't good reasons not to in the next day:

  1. Enact RoySmith's compromise, but as a temporary measure. For one thing, Legacypac and Taku have both agreed to it, and they are the main drivers (I know Hasteur hasn't). Leave the drafts there for a month, to allow the dust to settle. They could certainly be worked on while there, but this wouldn't necessarily be a long term solution, and it certainly wouldn't be setting a precedent for what to do with similar pages.
  2. Clemency for the many too-personal comments made by one side against the other. A strong suggestion to avoid people from the other side where possible, and avoid talking about the other side's motivations to anyone, for the one month period, but not a total interaction ban or anything.
  3. After a month (or sooner if everyone feels chill earlier), one or more of the following:
     1. A thread at WT:MATH about whether there is a benefit to hosting these sub-stub drafts in WP space, without resorting to comments on the other editors' motivations.
     2. A calm discussion... somewhere (WT:DRAFT? WP:VPPOLICY?) about the benefit/cost ratio of keeping extraordinarily short pages in draft space, when a good faith editor objects to deletion, without resorting to comments on the other editors' motivations. I have not yet seen a fully persuasive rationale for keeping them or for deleting them.
     3. A calm discussion somewhere else.
  4. As a result of this/these calm discussion(s), with no deadlines, either delete the drafts from WP space, move them back to draft space, move them to userspace, or leave them where they are.

  In other words, postpone the decision, giving people a chance to cool off, and stop edit warring / namecalling / block shopping / being angry. AN/ANI is about the worst place to try to solve a complicated problem. Let's follow RoySmith's advice and compromise, and try this again in a more productive place than here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:41, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Its not a complicated problem. Taku wants to host his unlikely-to-ever-be-worked-on-once-created stubs in draftspace, the editors who have been attempting to clean up draftspace would rather he actually work on them and/or submit them to AFC - you know, what draftspace is actually for. And have successfully managed to change the CSD criteria so unless he (or anyone else) does work on drafts, they will be deleted as abandoned. Since the solution to the problem of having unworked/abandoned stubs of little value sitting in draftspace is to not have them in draftspace, the easiest solution is just to move them all to Taku's sandbox where he can continue to not work on them to his heart's content and everyone else who really doesnt care about them can safely ignore them like all the other random stuff thats in sandboxes. Granted Taku wont be happy, but the point of dispute resolution is to resolve the dispute, not move it around the place. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:17, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: With respect. The compromise has already been broken by TauyaMurata in first having the pages in Taku's namespace and then moving them to annother user's draft space. If Taku wanted to work on these, they should be in Taku's userspace. Moving these to Taku's workspace has been resisted tooth and nail by Taku. Multiple offers have been extended to Taku to show how they can get Legacypac and Myself to go away for 6 months. The change to the CSD rule was enacted by community consensus with Taku also providing feedback, so I find your claim that we changed the rule offensive. Finally I intend to hold your words up in 6 months when I predict that there will be not a single edit to any of the topics because Taku has repeatedly made the same noises without a single line of substantial improvement. Hasteur (talk) 00:07, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

• this is pretty simple now and can be closed by an Admin, and here is a suggested closing statement "

"We accept Taku's agreement to move his stubs to MathProject. Most have already been gathered into one page and any missed can be added by any editor. All Taku stubs so consolidated shall be deleted with Taku forbidden from objecting/DRVs or requesting REFUNDS on the consolidated pages. Development of the topics for mainspace is encouraged." Feel free to adjust the closing stmt or suggest improvements. Legacypac (talk) 04:01, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

• • Several things are wrong with the statement. In RoySmith's original formulation, there was no suggestion to consolidate draft pages into one page (thus the statement is significant departure from the original). For another, many of the drafts started by me are not really stubs; e.g., Draft:residual intersection. "Development of the topics for mainspace is encouraged." too vague; also not in the original formulation. My understanding on RoySmith's proposal is it says that we use subpages of the wikiproject math as opposed to the draftspace. This is acceptable to me because it simply represents the change of the locations of the drafts (and not to the substance of them). It is my understanding that the substance of the drafts are not problems but the location is; somehow it is wrong to store drafts in the draftspace :) -- Taku (talk) 05:01, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

So... 70 or so little stubs? Since you oppose encouragement to develop the topics for mainspace... did you want to mandate development or forbid it altogether or just discourage development? Those are the other options right? Legacypac (talk) 05:14, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Taku, the consolidation is not at all a hostile act against you. Its reason was explained by Johnunique, and reformulated by me as "in order to be a healthy organism, Misplaced Pages needs both digestive system and excretory system! We do not like a precedent decision that makes it possible for advocacy groups to avoid the excretory system." (above) Class hatred between these two systems is destructive (as always). Boris Tsirelson (talk) 05:25, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I know but the consolidation fundamentally changes the nature of the drafts; it ties the drafts to me. The reason I use the draftspace as opposed to my user-page is to make suggestions that the drafts belong to the community not me. The closing statement I have in mind is

Because of the reviewing complications, for mathematics-related drafts, use subpages of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Mathematics instead of the draft namespace.

• It is important that the statement does not refer to one particular user.
• Equally important, the statement should not refer to any editing behavior.

-- Taku (talk) 06:34, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

"ties the drafts to me"? Yes, if the page will be called "Taku's drafts"; no, if it will be called "Our drafts", or "Algebraic geometry drafts", etc. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 06:41, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Maybe I misssed thr point: why do we want to consolidate drafts into one page? Obviously, it's more convenient to edit Draft:residual intersection as a standalone page rather than a section in one giant single draft page. Without consolidation, I image there will be a list of draft pages sorted by subjects so it will be easier to find interested editors to work on them. -- Taku (talk) 07:45, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Sure, for us mathematicians it is better not to consolidate. But for admins that must resist bad-intended advocacy groups, it is safer to consolidate. I guess so; but I am not one of them, and not authorized to represent them. If you are able to resist the consolidation, do. Otherwise, accept. Such is the life, and it becomes sucher and sucher. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 07:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

@Taku: If the drafts "belong to the community and not ", then why are you exhibiting such powerful WP:OWNERSHIP over them? You fight tooth and nail to exert your will about how they should be handled. That doesn't show that you believe they "belong to the community", that shows that you act as if they belong to you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:58, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

No, no, I'm trying to fight against the attempt to impose idiosyncratic view of how the draftspace must be used, the view that does not have the community support and that is inconsistent with the policies like WP:DEADLINE. Obviously, say, Legacypac's view is not always the same thing as the community's view. In fact, many so-called problematic drafts survive MfD, which implies there is a solid support for my use of the draftspace. Some editors might be verbose; doesn't mean their opinions are the majority's. I admit there does seem a tension between whether the draftspace must be reserved for the short-term use only or should be allowed for the long-term use. I have suggested we run an RfC to find the community's opinion on this and that was considered a disruption... If I just want to own them, I would just use my user-page (in fact, I use my sandbox for drafts I want to own.) -- Taku (talk) 09:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

With no respect (because you've burned all my available AGF) you are wrong. The RFC which expanded G13 (for which you participated in extensively) clearly indicates that drafts that are unedited for over 6 months (like the ones we've been debating for the entire period) should be speedy deleted. Period, End of Line, No debate. Want to change that? Launch a new RFC making your case. Until then the community consensus provides for taking a critical view to pages that are unedited for over 6 months (like yours) because they do not further Misplaced Pages's purpose WP:5P1. Hasteur (talk) 12:41, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

"impose idiosyncratic view of how the draftspace must be used" I refer you to the previous linked RFC which is very clear that draftspace is not for indefinite draft storage. Please find another tree to bark at. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:49, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I also object to the example of Draft:Residual intersection being flung around like chum to muddy the watters. Looking at the history we discover the page was created at 00:00 26 May 2017‎ (UTC) which by even the first revision makes this page less than 6 months ago so thereby is still concievably being worked on. Furthermore the most recent revision is from 08:18, 18 July 2017‎ (UTC) which again makes this page far too young to consider G13. Yet another line from Taku's Playbook for Delay and Disruption: Pull the debate to a topic that has a better case of getting cherry-picked support so that the generic debate can end in a "No Consensus" close. Hasteur (talk) 12:51, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Taku's accusation that I'm verbose but my opinions don't reflect consensus is one of the funniest things I've seen this week! Look in a mirror Taku! It's more than a little odd that Taku is complaining about G13 expansion after he voted FOR it. Anyway, he was fighting anyone touching HIS drafts (that apparently belong to the community today) well over a year ago. There are correct terms for people that will say anything, even contradicting themselves, to stir trouble. Legacypac (talk) 16:10, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

There is a little confusion as to what the expansion of G13 means: it is about how to delete the stuff and not about what to. It was about streamlining the deletion procession; the question was formulated as such. If we were to permanently delete any page that is unedited for 6 months, we need to disallow, for instance, the refund of G13-deleted pages. There is still no consensus that there need a refund-proof deletion of old drafts. In fact, MfD, DVR, and WikiProject math if you look at anywhere else, you find this rogue "clean-up of the draftspace" does not have the strong community support. Fighting against rogue operations should not be considered as a disruption. -- Taku (talk) 21:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Again no respect. You seem to repeatedly and willfully mis-construe the RFC to the point that I question your competency to understand and form coherent arguments in English as you have enumerated multiple times that it is not your primary language. G13 is the current law of the land, and nothing prohibits you from requesting a REFUND on those pages, however when they come eligible for G13 again (which I predict will happen) they will be deleted again for lack of editing. On a subsequent REFUND I expect the admin will see the history and see that it had been requested before and zero progress was made. REFUND is a low effort restoration, but there is an effort. An admin is also obligated to see if there is actually any progress on the page for previous requests. Furthermore this argument that it's a rogue operation is patently wrong, willfully deceptive, and very short of a personal attack. Hasteur (talk) 22:26, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

"Rogue operations" it's not my opinion but has been expressed broadly. There has been a wide skepticism whether it is necessary to clean-up old but legitimate drafts (there are a lot of worthless drafts and I'm not talking about them; the G13 expansion mainly concerns the latter type). "An admin is also obligated to see if there is actually any progress on the page for previous requests." This is news to me; can you provide me a link to this instruction? -- Taku (talk) 23:15, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

@TakuyaMurata: Please properly indent your messages. The standard on Misplaced Pages is to add one tab (represented by a colon) for each response, to make a pyramidal structure. You tend to go in and out and in and out, which is more difficult to read. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:21, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

To those closing, here is another evidence so-called "consensus" only exists in the fantasy land: Talk:Geometry of an algebraic curve. The reference to a hypothetical non-existent consensus got to be stopped. -- Taku (talk) 22:01, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Yet annother case of willfull "I didn't hear that" by Takuya. This real and present disruption has got to be stopped. Hasteur (talk) 22:26, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Are you again referring to the G13-expansion RfC? Again it was about streamlining the deletion process; nothing more. The question was not about the proper use of the draftspace. See also Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Is_this_really_what_people_supported_in_the_G13_RfC.3F for the related discussion. -- Taku (talk) 05:34, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Your repeated attempts to claim victory out of resounding defeat surpasses all the markers of WP:IDHT and WP:CIR. Look forward to round two in 6 months when we get the opportunity to argue this again. I challenge you Taku to prove me wrong by focusing for at least net 100k bytes on improving the text of these pages. If not then my previous assertion (that you're only interested in the topics because they're your creations and therefore an impermissible form of WP:OWN) stands and is reinforced. Hasteur (talk) 12:04, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Hasteur, could you let this go? It's clearly gotten very personal for you. We have a compromise that only you seem to object to. Can't we just do that and move along? Hobit (talk) 18:36, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Without some form of guarantee that we won't be back here in 6~12 months re-litigating this debate and that Taku will be further emboldened at the fact that this discussion was closed as anything but a sanction to them, I think the harm to Misplaced Pages is still a clear and present danger. Hasteur (talk) 23:48, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

All the Taku nonsense about G13 is a smoke screen. He has requested and received refunds on each deleted page and another 5 or so were untagged for him. The refund request includes the words something like "because I intend to work on this". In 6 months we shall see if Taku is true to his word or not. Legacypac (talk) 00:13, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

To be clear, I don't think the REFUND takes the editors' minds into account; in fact, there is no things like continuous-editing requirement for REFUND (there shouldn't be). -- Taku (talk) 02:58, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Read WP:REFUND. I found something interesting though. The normal G13 REFUND wording says "I, usename, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it."

However and Taku did not use that for most of his REFUND requests, which may include knowingly deleting the wording. Does this indicate he requested the REFUNDS without intending to work on them? Were these refunds WP:POINT behavior? Taku - please answer yes or no - do you intend to work on all these drafts? Legacypac (talk) 04:08, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I do believe the template message is misleading and incorrect; for one thing, the drafts weren't created through AfC. For another, we shouldn't use intentionality as a test of whether we restore a page or not, since that can be subject to dispute and REFUND isn't an alternative venue for MfD or DVR. (To answer the question, I intend to work on any page in Misplaced Pages.) -- Taku (talk) 07:54, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

So... No you do not intend to work on your notes in Draft space. That is the only way to interpret that evasive answer. The requests for a REFUND was misleading and WP:POINTy. Legacypac (talk) 21:37, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

When/where did I say I don't intend to work on them? I'm questioning whether it is a good idea to ask such a question. Also, the instruction page is dated (e.g., only talks about AfC) and is not applicable to non-AfC drafts. -- Taku (talk) 22:48, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps TakuyaMurata is either confused to the point of competence questioning or disrupting Misplaced Pages to make a point, but the procedure for requesting a refund of a page deleted by G13 clearly states If your draft article has been deleted for this reason, and you wish to retrieve it because you intend to continue working on it: (emphasis mine). The majority and spirit of the line has been in since February 9th of 2014. Taku has read the page as that is the only way they could have known the template to use. This behavior only reinforces my hypothesis that we'll be back in 6 months to nominate these again because Taku has not spent one byte improving the pages they requested REFUND on. Hasteur (talk) 12:31, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

• Move them all to Taku's userspace. At this point, it really doesn't matter what Taku wants in my opinion, because what he wants violates WP:NOTWEBHOST. Moving the things to his userpsace will at least get rid of the draftspace problem. It would be nice if an admin could close this endless discussion and make the obvious and easiest call, so that we could all go back to focusing on, you know, actually building an encyclopedia. Softlavender (talk) 18:02, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
  • What part of NOTWEBHOST does this violate? The point of draft space to to have drafts. These are drafts aren't they? Hobit (talk) 20:20, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Besides if NOTWEBHOST is an issue, moving the pages to the user-space doesn't solve the issue since the policy applies to the userspaces. For the record, I would much prefer to work on the encyclopedic content; I'm merely responding to the other side's disruption; i.e., an attempt to remove legitimate perfectly-harmless drafts. -- Taku (talk) 22:54, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
    • As far as I understand, the items are not legitimate drafts. Nor is draftspace for anything at all that is "perfectly harmless". To paraphrase NOTWEBHOST, Misplaced Pages draftspace is not your personal website or drawing board or playground. The ridiculous amount of time and contention that is being devoted to this right now, and the refusal to accept a reasonable and harmless solution, is an indication in my mind that there are serious CIR and NOTHERE elements at play here. I'm almost wishing that this entire thread would have been brought to ANI rather than AN, because there is a wider audience there and less tolerance for endless back-and-forth nonsense without resolution. Softlavender (talk) 01:47, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
      • I disagree; as far as I understand, they are legitimate (see Talk:Geometry of an algebraic curve, this is not just my only personalm view). (Also, if NOTWEBHOST is an issue, the pages need to be deleted, not moved.) I do agree this dispute is about the proper use of the draftspace. So I have repeated suggested that we run an RfC to find out the community's view the proper use of the draftspace. From MfD, DVR and other talk pages, my understanding is that my use of the draftspace is legitimate. -- Taku (talk) 02:03, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

From board to board to board shopping for decisions he likes and ignoring or seeking to overturn decisions he does not like. Untold drama instead of either building good content. Legacypac (talk) 11:41, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Please, pretty please, before judging on math content, keep in mind your pertinent professional incompetence and, before beweeping the untold drama, consider its abundancy caused by you janitors in steadfastly refusing to agree to a suggested compromise. Purgy (talk) 13:43, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

@Purgy: I don't think that English is your primary language, so probably you're not aware that "incompetence" is not the neutral word it may appear to be, because of its connotations, which include being stupid or inept. If your point is that Legacypac and Hasteur are not professional mathematicians (which, of course, they don't have to be to count to "6 months" and look at the history of a draft to see if it's been worked on in that time), it would have been more polite to say something like "your lack of professional qualifications in mathematics." (And, so you know for the future, "Pretty, pretty please" is a fairly condescending thing to say.)But, be that as it may, I don't see where either of them are making judgments on the value of the mathematical content of the drafts in question. It appears to me that the point being made is that the drafts have been sitting in draft space without being worked on for a substantial period of time, and therefore should be moved elsewhere. That's not a judgment on the content of the drafts, it's a judgment on where they are, how long they've been there, and what's not happened to them in that time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:36, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

You are perfectly right about English not being my mother tongue, and I do not even live in a pertinent country, so thanks for your hints to a more adequate use of pretty please and incompetence, even when decorated with the adjective "professional" and the one in italics above. But mostly I want to emphasize that my comment did not address anyone's capability to count or look, but the statement by Legacypac "Untold drama instead of either building good content.", which I perceived, in this here context, to be targeting missing or defect "math content". Sadly, because of this repeated misinterpretations I cannot revise my estimation of you being "perfectly biased", favouring the "janitors of draft" and turning down "Taku, the vandal of draft". Maybe, this all is caused by me being inept to understand English in a native way. So sorry. Purgy (talk) 10:31, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Maybe, or maybe I am "perfectly biased" and just don't know it, but it now appears to me that the only participant in this particular colloquy who is "perfectly biased" is you. "Janitors of draft", indeed. "Notorious user Hasteur"? Those are not the comments of an unbiased observer, whatever their proficiency with English. I extended you AGF, but you've sucked it all up. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:35, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

No one needs an advanced math degree to assess a page with no meaningful content - including ones with not a word of content. Legacypac (talk) 00:01, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Arbitration?

It looks like arbitration is the next step. Stifle (talk) 14:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

With regret I feel obliged to report that this, rightfully sighed at, remark is canvassed by notorious user Hasteur, who did not hesitate to bias a presumed arbiter with headlining the problems as solely caused by Taku-cruft, without even mentioning his denial of any compromise short of his fullblown targets, and of course not admitting own stubbornness. Purgy (talk) 15:30, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? Hasteur hasn't edited User talk:Stifle since 17 August, and (as best as I can tell) hasn't posted on the talk page of any arbitrator for more than a month. Since the hinting above doesn't seem to have penetrated, I'm going to put this more bluntly: WP:No personal attacks applies to you just as much as it does to anyone else, and if you continue insulting other editors or making accusations without evidence, you will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. ‑ Iridescent 16:32, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for that response, though had I decided to presue advanced forms of DR, I would have named Purgy as a useful idiot addition to the case. For the time being I feel that the case is pretty well put now that 2 administrators have strongly reminded TakuyaMurata that "started a deletion review purely as process for process' sake" is disruptive and can be a blockable offense. Takuya's drafts are either below the threshold or are being debated. I have very little doubt that in 6 months we will be back here, having this same debate, with exactly the same cast of disputants, with some of the same enablers of the action. At that point I suspect there will be a 1 week AN thread before I or someone else will transition this to ArbCom so that the underlying conduct dispute can be resolved short of the Appeal to Jimmy. I do not expect this to come to ANI beause it does not need immediate (<48 hrs) resolution as it is not an existential threat to Misplaced Pages. Hasteur (talk) 20:28, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Appeal my topic ban

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

About 15 months ago, following my successful appeal here against a ban and block, I had three restrictions applied as conditions of the unban and unblock granted. I was told that I could appeal each of those restrictions independently after one year. Two months ago I successfully appealed against my 1RR restriction and since then I continued my trouble-free record of editing. So today please, I would like to appeal the second of my three restrictions - my topic ban.

I was indefinitely topic banned from metrication and units of measure, broadly construed, for all countries and all pages on Misplaced Pages including, but not at all limited to, talk and user talk pages - with the exception that I may add measurements to articles I created so long as they were in compliance with the WP:MOS.

I have, to the best of my knowledge, complied 100% with this restriction over the last 15 months - so am now asking for this topic ban to be lifted too please. I understand the principles of the MOS and I do not plan to re-open any of the old arguments or controversies, but would very much appreciate not having to navigate so very carefully to keep clear of any articles or article content within the scope of the topic ban. The main reason for my appeal is to continue along the path back to full good standing within the community. I very much want to return to playing a full part in this enterprise and am committed to doing my best to help to improve Misplaced Pages. Please give this appeal your full and careful consideration. -- de Facto (talk). 20:32, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Following Dennis Brown's wise words in the discussion below, I would like to change my appeal from asking for a complete lifting of the topic ban, to asking to have the topic ban replaced with a 1RR restriction on the same metrication and units of measure scope. Thanks. -- de Facto (talk). 16:24, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

Note that Dennis Brown stated, on 13 June 2017, "I would be less inclined to lift the others today, but I think this is the best one to start with and we can revisit another in 6 months". 6 months from 13 June 2017 is 13 December 2017. I say this entirely without prejudice. I have no opinion at this time whether your topic ban should be lifted and do not know whether Dennis Brown still holds this opinion. --Yamla (talk) 22:00, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

• While I am inclined toward support based on the previous AN/I discussion, I think there is still a sentiment that the topic ban should not be lifted just yet. If this appeal was rejected, and the original poster can manage to continue to contribute in a positive manner, the next appeal (possibly in December as noted above) would probably have much higher chance of success. Alex Shih 04:47, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
• Neutral. I wish you would have waited longer, but it is certainly within your right to request a lifting of the sanction. I will add this, I think that if you instead asked for a modification of the sanction along the lines of "The topic ban of metrification (etc) is here modified to allow editing under a 1RR restriction" you would have better luck. Then wait a year for the 1RR lift request. 1RR is not a huge deal to live with. We are a bit gun shy, to be honest. In your defense, you've complied with all expectations as far as I can see, but I think you understand why the community is hesitant. I will just say that lifting it but inserting a 1RR restriction would have my Support. Otherwise, I would stay neutral in the matter. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:46, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks Dennis Brown for your constructive suggestion and wise words. I will happily go with your idea of a 1RR restriction in place of the topic ban on the metrication and units of measure scope - I wish I had the wisdom to have thought of that for myself! Hopefully it will also help to reassure others that my only intention is to be constructive and add value to Misplaced Pages. -- de Facto (talk). 16:19, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Would you also accept a continued ban from the MOS in general, from MOSNUM in particular, and from their talk pages? This would still mean that you would not have to "navigate so very carefully to keep clear of any articles or article content within the scope of the topic ban." 92.19.24.150 (talk) 21:56, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I'll accept whatever the consensus here believes is necessary. -- de Facto (talk). 08:05, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Then to be clear, I support the new 1RR. I think this will allow DeFacto to demonstrate they can restrain themselves, and by giving them a little rope, we give them the opportunity to keep climbing out of this hole, or hang himself. Hopefully, the climb will continue. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:47, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Given how much trouble was caused by de Facto on metrification, I don't think it would be productive to allow them to return to editing anything to do with units. Number 57 09:22, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

@Number 57: may I ask, what it would take to convince you that this topic ban is not required to prevent disruptive editing? -- de Facto (talk). 20:51, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

It would involve a time machine and you not causing all those problems in the past. My experience is that editors who were as troublesome as you were are not able to change; given that you can edit everything on Misplaced Pages except this, I don't see any benefit from lifting the topic ban. Number 57 21:05, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

• For all I remember what happened before, our rules hold that everyone can come back if we understand that they are unlikely to be disruptive. On the basis of a 1RR, and an understanding that a repeat of the behaviour we saw before the ban will most certainly result in a reimposition of sanctions (and I'm pretty sure that's already understood), I will support lifting this ban at this time. Kahastok talk 21:26, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

• strong support . The user fully complies with the restrictions imposed (as far as I can know - no idea regarding the"always logged-in" part, for obvious reasons). I do not see any other signs of disruptive editing either. So, changing the topic ban to 1RR will be no harm for the community. Quite the contrary, since the user will likely contribute constructively. --Kostas20142 (talk) 14:32, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
• support either lifting the topic ban or replacing it with 1RR on the same scope. As much as I respect Dennis' wisdom, I don't see the point in saying, essentially, that there is no reason not to lift the ban but we're going to make you wait four months more anyway. Contra the adamant oppose above, indefinite does not mean infinite and I think we should always be willing to reconsider after time has passed. de Facto will know they are going to be subject to extra scrutiny, We could perhaps add an extra condition that the TBAN can be reimposed by any uninvolved admin if problems re-emerge in the next year. GoldenRing (talk) 14:45, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I've worked the SPI cases and know the history pretty well. If DeFacto goes off the wagon, he already knows it will likely be an indef block. My suggestion of 1RR was one to help him, as restraint was a demonstrated problem in the past. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:48, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support either the original requests or the 1RR version. The initial dispute was over trivia (a metrication-related example in one article), the editor lost his cool and apparently didn't have much respect for or intent to continue participating in the project as serious work at that time, and was just in an "F it all" mode after he initial administrative action. This attitude has clearly changed in the intervening years. Everyone makes mistakes and learns from them.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  22:19, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

• Tend to oppose – the years of socking and circular, timewasting MOSNUM discussions cannot simply be forgiven and forgotten. But, as others say above, he can contribute constructively subject to stringent restrictions. If the restriction is to be eased (about which I am personally unconvinced – I do not see the benefit in allowing him to edit on a fairly marginal topic about which he has only been disruptive in the past), it must be made absolutely clear that he will be banned for life from editing Misplaced Pages if there is any hint of a return to his past malicious behaviour. Archon 2488 (talk) 16:01, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

@Archon 2488: can I ask, what would persuade you that this topic ban is not required to prevent disruptive editing? -- de Facto (talk). 10:51, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

My question was more about the motivation for wanting it removed, as seen from Misplaced Pages's perspective. I understand that you personally find it frustrating, but since editing WP is not a right but a privilege, the question that needs to be answered is not whether it is personally inconvenient for you to be banned from making edits related to measurements and the MOS. The question is whether it is in the encyclopedia's interest to lift the ban – what material difference does it make, if you are allowed to make edits concerning a fairly minor subject (and we can accept that your contributions unrelated to this subject have not caused problems), when there is extremely strong past evidence of disruptive behaviour in this area, out of all proportion to its importance? What would you be able to do, in concrete terms, that you are currently prevented from doing? For the record, I am strongly opposed to lifting the MOS-related restrictions. Any extra liberty to edit in article-space needs to be granted subject to strict conditions, as described above.

If you can persuade me that there is some tangible benefit to easing the ban – meaning a real improvement in your ability to contribute constructively – then fair enough. Obviously, it comes with the proviso that any subsequent hint of disruptive behaviour will be nipped in the bud with an immediate reinstatement of sanctions (and you'd do well to understand the sentiment behind Number 57's comment above – some forms of trust, once gone, are basically never going to come back). You can be assured that people will be checking your contributions to ensure that past "mistakes" do not have the chance to be repeated. As Dennis Brown says above, any extra "rope" you are granted here can serve one function as well as the other, and you don't need me to tell you that everyone will take a very dim view of any future abuse of trust. Archon 2488 (talk) 11:47, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Good point Archon. My belief is that having this topic ban lifted will enable me to continue with the sort of article creation, improvement and expansion that I used to do before the troubles arose surrounding the said topic. If you look back over my contribution history, you will see that amongst the 400+ articles I have created and my 13,000ish live edits to about 2,500 different pages, my subject coverage is broad - including engineering, architecture, roads, motor vehicles, motoring, road safety, geography, politics, history, as well as the said topic and much more - most of which inevitably have content related to the said topic.

In a nutshell, I believe that without the topic ban I'll be more efficient and more effective at adding value to a broader range of Misplaced Pages articles, just as I was before my troubles. -- de Facto (talk). 17:54, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support, but only with the 1RR, and the "continued ban from the MOS in general, from MOSNUM in particular, and from their talk pages" suggested above. That restriction seems like a sensible step which would not hinder article editing/creation at all, and could be somewhat reassuring for those who remember the old disruption and still fear a return to it. Without those additional conditions, count me as opposed at this time. -- Begoon 07:26, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support with 1RR restriction per Dennis Brown. Blackmane (talk) 02:17, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support with 1RR restriction per Dennis Brown, but with very short leash. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:20, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Urgent: where do I stand now?

A couple of days after my topic ban was apparently reduced to a 1RR and the editing restrictions log updated, another editor has reverted that close and reset the log.

As the editor didn't quote any policy, I was unable to confirm for myself whether these later edits were correct. Inbetween times I started editing again in the topic in question. Was this, what is effectively a reapplication of the ban, correct and justified? -- de Facto (talk). 08:27, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Remain calm. There is no rush. The thread will be closed by an administrator (this is the administrators' noticeboard) shortly. 31 hours is not "a couple of days". Softlavender (talk) 08:53, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

So I'm re-topic-banned for now? @Softlavender: what makes you think that it must be an admin - is that interpretation documented in a policy somewhere? BTW, you are right about the number of hours, but as it was done on Friday (UTC) and undone on Sunday (UTC), I was right about the "couple of days" too). :) -- de Facto (talk). 09:13, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Pinging NE Ent as the original closer: I wonder if you have a view on this. -- de Facto (talk). 09:19, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

@NE Ent: I see you've moved this section up amongst the older stuff, won't that mean it receives less attention? Do you have on view on Softlavender's action? -- de Facto (talk). 12:04, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh dear.

First, I assume it's obvious this should not be treated as a topic ban violation because De Facto had reason to assume that a different restriction was in force.

Second, Softlavender really should have made it clear what he was doing and what the implications were on De Facto's talk page, not just reverted and expected De Facto to keep up. There was no reason to assume that De Facto would have even noticed that the close had been reverted and that there might be some question as to what restrictions were in force.

On the question at hand, I am not aware of any rules restricting closes on WP:AN to admins - WP:CLOSE explicitly says that any uninvolved editor can close a discussion - but it may be that I've missed something. Regardless, it seems to me that if the close is disputed with have a process at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE that was not followed, and if it is not disputed the fact that it was not done by an admin is not, in and of itself, a reason to revert it.

That being said, De Facto, for now I assume it is obvious that in the meantime you are best off acting as though the close never happened. Kahastok talk 12:23, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

This is a mess. DeFacto, in response to your question, WP:CBAN specifies an uninvolved admin must close discussions related to bans. Your original sanctions are currently still in effect. Any violations between the improper close and now are not an issue; you had every reason to be confused about what the active sanction was. ~ Rob₁₃ 12:51, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Where do we go from here?
— Games People Play (The Alan Parsons Project song)

In Misplaced Pages-as-it-should-be, the non-admin closing of a two week old discussion with a clear consensus and no activity for the past three days would be allowed to stand. At least BU Rob13 took the time to post a link that sort of supports their argument, although a more careful reading makes it clear imposing a ban requires an admin close; it doesn't actually say reducing a ban does. I certainly would have no argument with someone reverting the close if they genuinely felt the outcome is in doubt. In any event, hopefully an actual admin will become weary enough of this discussion and realize the most expeditious way to resolve the situation is close the above discussion. DeFacto: best just to wait until the discussion gets formally closed; if it goes to archive without a close fire me an email and I'll annoy some admin into closing it. NE Ent 15:35, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

• OK, it seems clear that there's a consensus to close as per NE Ent's original close, so as an uninvolved admin I will do so now. Black Kite (talk) 15:44, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

On a related subject: A "ban reduction" is essentially voiding the old ban and implementing a new one, so any "ban reduction" needs to be closed by an admin, per policy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:28, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

IPBE, Sysop bit and TOR

I'm testing with TOR (I will soon be traveling more) and noticed that I could NOT edit Misplaced Pages. My understanding is that the Sysop bit automatically has IPBE on the English Misplaced Pages, yet it wouldn't let me post. I'm quite sure I have the admin bit. I've manually added IPBE to my sysop account (this one), and now I'm currently adding this section using TOR. Did they remove IPBE from the basic sysop tool kit? Is this a bug I need to report? Not something I'm using to messing with, so throwing out here to my fellow admins. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:43, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: From WP:IPBE: "Administrators and bots are always exempt from such blocks (with the exception of Tor blocks)." Apparently you need actual IPBE as an admin to get around Tor blocks and Tor blocks only. Weird. In any event, I'd recommend using an alternative account without sysop if you're testing Tor. Tor has had many vulnerabilities over the years, and it's probably not worth the risk of using your admin account. ~ Rob₁₃ 14:59, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Probably not a bad idea. My two alts (Pharmboy and Farmer Brown) both have IPBE anyway, but I usually reserve those for lesser devices where I don't trust the interface and reaction time to use the admin acct, and use this account for my laptop. I need to read up on TOR a bit more, not something I've used much. Proxies of one kind or another are impossible to avoid on the road. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:49, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

How that policy wording came about. What you are actually using is the 'torunblocked' bit, which has never been in the sysop package. The IPBE group contains both the ipblock-exempt right (which sysops have) and torunblocked. -- zzuuzz 16:53, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Then we need to add that to the sysop package. I can't see how that would be controversial. Not sure how to get that done, I don't even think a consensus is needed, as it is implied that sysop should be able to do that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:42, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

It'll need an RfC via WP:VPR. If there's consensus then we can ask a dev to flip the switch. -FASTILY 23:21, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

• Actually, I oppose adding "torunblocked" to the sysop package, but only because I think we should take away the rest of the automatic IPBE right from admins too. Under our current policy, normal humans who want to use IPBE must convince an admin they have a "demonstrated need", and "Proxies of one kind or another are impossible to avoid on the road" has traditionally not cut it. You have to actually demonstrate you're blocked, and then it gets taken away as soon as you're not blocked anymore. Even for well established editors. Not sure why that all goes out the window when someone gets the admin bit. This is not a dig at Dennis (and I should probably apologize for pseudo-hijacking his thread), but it is a dig at the situation. Almost no one besides an admin who wanted to use Tor just because they were travelling would be given this right. I'm not sure admins realize how annoying that distinction is to non-admins. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:55, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I'd second Floq here, with the caveat that a general relaxation of the issuing of IPBE to non-admins would serve the same effect (such that any reasonable editor can get IPBE if they want it, regardless). Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:58, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Well, WK, I'm actually kind of disrupting WP to make a point (don't tell anyone). I'd prefer to relax the IPBE criteria for everyone too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:01, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
      • There are other reasons to use IP exempt than just to be on travelling. Some of our editors (like me) live in areas of this world where it is utterly annoying to be on an account without such exemptions. I agree, it is not WP that is the problem here where I live, it is the outside websites that do get spammed but also used as references where I cannot get to, or where I do not want to go without hiding my real IP. Do you western-worlders understand how annoying the internet becomes when I would constantly have to turn on and off my VPN? --Dirk Beetstra 08:13, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
        • @Beetstra: But that's my whole point. I'm saying that you shouldn't get special treatment because you're an admin, when a non-admin in your same position would have to either constantly turn on and off their VPN, or ask an admin for IPBE (who may need to consult a checkuser first), justifying in detail why they need it. I'm not saying take IPBE away from you; I'm saying don't give it to admins whether they need it or not, but then make long-term experienced non-admins justify their need for it to some admin, who can just say no. Either you should have to justify your need for it too, or everyone who's been here a certain length of time and demonstrated their good faith editing should be able to get it without begging. I prefer the second option, but the first option is better than what we do now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:32, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
          • @Floquenbeam: But by far most editors don't need the torexempt, and neither do they need ipblockexempt. I know that this borders on bad faith, but I want editors who have blocked socks to have autoblocks on their main account (and actually, that should be the case for admins as well). I need torexempt because of other reasons, not because I am an admin (and I requested that globally). --Dirk Beetstra 05:20, 29 August 2017 (UTC) (now that did not make sense, correct ping: @Floquenbeam: --Dirk Beetstra 05:21, 29 August 2017 (UTC))

Well, there was an RFC back in February to change the policy, so I've changed the Misplaced Pages:IP block exemption page to match the RFC close. NE Ent 19:57, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

PSA: With Bbb23 on indeterminate leave, SPI is backlogged for closings

Bbb23 has been "on break for an undetermined length of time" since July 28, and WP:SPI appears to be getting backlogged for closings and blocks. I think additional admin participation at present to institute closings and blocks would be helpful. (I notice this because an SPI I opened, which shall go nameless, was CUed with a result 2 weeks ago, but it has not been closed by an admin; this seems rather longer than I've experienced in the past and if that is true I'm sure other SPIs are languishing as well.) Softlavender (talk) 12:21, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Both CU result SPIs and non-CU SPIs are particularly backlogged at the moment and could use admin assistance in closure. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:13, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Concur in the request. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:56, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I closed a few easy ones. I'll look at some more later. It can be tedious work, especially when you're unfamiliar with both the sockmaster and the topic area. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:18, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

• Maybe y'all will consider sending some flowers to Bbb, and maybe a gift card or two, for past services rendered. Drmies (talk) 03:13, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Drmies, has he had a personal or family event/death or illness? I'm sure we all wish him very well and although we'd love to have him back here soon, want him to take all the time off that he needs. (PS, I have no idea what his name or email address is; I don't think I've ever corresponded with him that way.) Softlavender (talk) 07:24, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Drmies is using southern speak to indicate that a note of appreciation on Bbb23's talk page may be in order for those so inclined.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:02, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Well hell, I am a Southerner born, bred, and raised (and did not escape until the 24th year of my life), and I did not understand what he meant. FFS. Softlavender (talk) 13:16, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

By South, I think he meant Eindhoven... ;) — fortunavelut luna 13:21, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Eindhoven is in Belgium, as far as I'm concerned. Berean Hunter, my southern speech is quite faulty--I really meant flowers and gift cards knowing fully well that Bbb is a mysterious character whom no one knows. Softlavender, no, that's not quite it--let's call it a Wiki burnout of sorts: that does him no justice, but it is related to what's going on. But whatever the case is, his service has been quite valuable; anyone who pays attention to SPI knows that. It's like Daniel Case with the user names, or Dennis Brown on the dramah boards, or Floquenbeam being a paratrooper-admin, or Diannaa and MER-C with the copyvios, or Materialscientist who has blocked more vandals than Giraffedata has corrected "comprise of"s, or Tide rolls who keeps the joint clean and none of you even know him, or BlueMoonset without whom the DYK setup would be a disaster (I'm not pinging these people--they don't need me to compliment them, and I can only hope to complement them). You don't really see it, and then they're not there, and we run into trouble. There are so many good people here donating so much of their valuable time, and Bbb is/was one of them. I have no idea if he'll be back, but I sure miss him. Drmies (talk) 16:48, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I am genuinely quite alarmed that Bbb may not be back, or be back in the near future. His devotion to the project has been constant and tireless and frankly fairly thankless. I don't know the details of what may have precipitated a lengthy absence beyond sheer burnout, but certainly if there is anything we can do to improve things for him on- or off-wiki, I'm sure we would jump at the chance. Softlavender (talk) 23:28, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I say that we double his salary, he's worth it.All joking aside, I'm as concerned as you to hear that there's a possibility he may not return. I think he's one of our very best admins and CUs, and certainly has great judgement as a CU (even when he turns me down, damn him, I respect his opinion). It would be a blow to the community if he were to decide to leave for good, but he's gotta do what's he's gotta do, I guess. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:37, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Well said, Drmies. Bbb23 has contributed incredibly much and he is very much missed, and it is good to get a reminder of some of the people who do a huge amount of work behind the scenes. --bonadea contributions talk 08:30, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I've returned as a checkuser and slowly I'm chipping away at the backlog. I don't want to go too fast and burn out. :-) --Deskana (talk) 01:31, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I see you managed to get your signature turned back around again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:39, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

* Posting this with a datestamp to keep thread here for a while longer. Softlavender (talk) 06:52, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

@Deskana: thanks for your help here (same for all the other CUs). The backlog is a headache (I wish we could find a way of documenting SPI workflow for historical/analysis purposes), but I think we're making some progress. GAB 20:10, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear that. There are a couple there that are actually causing me problems. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:03, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

• NOTE: It's not necessarily CUs that are needed here (Bbb23 was not a CU until fairly recently). It's admins needed to close SPIs and block socks and masters. Softlavender (talk) 08:20, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

@GeneralizationsAreBad: Not sure if you're aware, but the ArbCom CU statistics do show that 24% less checks were made this month, although it should also be noted that other CUs have done a good job of stepping up and increasing their checks to compensate for Bbb23's absence. jcc (tea and biscuits) 09:52, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Poorly references sports biographies

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

Hi,

Whilst going through the February 2009 orphans category, I came across a large number of one-line entries on living cricket players who have played a couple of matches each, some of which are unsourced, some of which are only sourced to CricketArchive. I was part-way going through draftifying them with AutoWikiBrowser when I was advised on IRC that, although there is a precedent for BLP mass-draftification, it tends to happen after discussion and not bold edits. They've now been rollbacked by my main account en-masse. All of these articles were created by 02blythed and most have been orphaned since 2009.

Relevant links:

• Notification to page creator
• My AWB account's contribs

Therefore, I propose the mass draftification of all poorly sourced cricket biographies created by 02blythed.

Thanks,

DrStrauss talk 16:43, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support This has been raised time and time again with this user. Their talkpage is a long list of prods and other BLP issues. All of these articles would meet the notability threshold, but there's just no care in their creation. Most of them are orphans, too. On the plus side, this user hasn't edited since March, but if they did return, I'd also strongly support that they do not create any further articles until they show some competence in what they're doing. Lugnuts 17:53, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
• Comment: At least one of the articles survived AfD: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/P. H. Barnes. I don't know how many are BLPs; I suspect most are not. StAnselm (talk) 18:57, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: here are 24 of the 86 BLPs he has created which start with the letter "A": . Only a tiny proportion exceed two lines. AfD is different from draftification but they need improvement to make them worthy of being in an encyclopedia of Misplaced Pages's calibre (or the calibre we are working towards). DrStrauss talk 20:13, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
• I doubt that article about P. H. Barnes would survive an AfD now. That discussion purely centered around Barnes passing NCRIC and therefore being given an auto-keep, but NSPORTS guidelines have been definitively confirmed as not superceding GNG. Passing NCRIC is enough to require an AfD discussion rather than CSD or PROD but you still need GNG-worthy sources to actually keep the article. The pages that 02blythed are making definitely do not show that kind of sourcing, so although they may pass NCRIC I strongly doubt they would all survive AfD. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:41, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

• Indeed, and at any rate, draftification is lower down in the severity of measures when compared to AfD. Maybe bundling them would result in a trainwreck but if they were all individually nominated I'd say a solid half would be deleted. I think the draftspace proposal is a good halfway house. If they are not improved in say, six months, then we can think about an AfD. DrStrauss talk 21:52, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Are you doing this under WP:DRAFTIFY? Do you realise one of the reasons "iv) a bold move from article space" was removed last year following consensus at an RFC Misplaced Pages talk:Drafts/Archive 5#RFC: Clarification over main-space to draft-space moves and Misplaced Pages talk:Drafts/Archive 6#Clarification over main-space to draft-space moves? Thincat (talk) 22:09, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Except that this more recent discussion is clearly applicable here, and consensus there is pretty strongly against disallowing bold moves the Draftspace. Also, there really wasn't a "consensus" offered at the first RfC you mention, certainly not against the idea entirely. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:52, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

The first RFC led to no action and the it was as a result of the second discussion that the change was made. The third discussion you point to (thank you) did not restore the general allowance to make bold moves but did not agree any guidelines for making such moves. My take is that such moves are allowed but under uncertain circumstances (and so need to be done cautiously). Thincat (talk) 07:09, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Hence me coming here. I was advised halfway through that the third RfC encouraged discussion. DrStrauss talk 09:27, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and thank you for doing this. My concern is that you describe the defects that some of them, or most of them, have. What about those that do not have these defects? For long established articles with multiple editors (including admins) does your view that they are unsuitable in main space prevail without discussion? I personally don't agree that "draftification is lower down in the severity of measures when compared to AfD" for long-established articles with multiple involvement. A lot of the discussion linked to from here has been on the assumption that the articles are new and with single authors where we don't want to bite them. This surely does not appyy to "community" articles when this has become the case. Thincat (talk) 11:50, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, I would say the length of their existence strengthens the case for draftification because of the lack of improvement over the past eight years. DrStrauss talk 13:28, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Are you referring to things like Sir Edward Antrobus, 8th Baronet, for example? Sure, it's a very, very weakly referenced article, and certainly rightly tagged, but I would object to it being moved to draft space (and the redirect consequently deleted) without discussion (and I don't really regard this here as "discussion"). AfD would be entirely appropiate. Thincat (talk) 14:45, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm referring to the hundreds of one-line articles such as the twenty-odd I linked above. DrStrauss talk 16:00, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

So I'm completely confused by this, my apologies. Best wishes anyway. Thincat (talk) 17:12, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

• I'm no expert in these things but I doubt Sir Edward Antrobus, 8th Baronet even qualifies for BLPPROD, never mind being being disappeared as an article. Thincat (talk) 22:37, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support having such pages around makes a mockery of our GNG guidelines. On the other side we have debates about including Billion dollar public companies. Legacypac (talk) 02:59, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support for any of them that are completely unsourced, with an explicit understanding that they may be recreated at any time if someone is willing to rewrite using reliable sources. Lankiveil 05:37, 24 August 2017 (UTC).

I think, in general, they are not unsourced but they are (very) weakly sourced. Thincat (talk) 06:53, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support per above, they have not been improved after eight years, some violate policies and unless someone is willing to go through them one by one, it is best all be moved into draftspace and be considered there on their individual merits. jcc (tea and biscuits) 15:11, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support - Per Legacypac. The articles haven't been improved recently, so moving them into draft space is the best option. SophisticatedSwampert 16:34, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

• WP:NOPAGE also applies. Someone might consider rolling them all together into a big list. Legacypac (talk) 18:46, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose unless consensus is found to change WP:ATHLETE . Until then, the articles, as brief as they are, meet what the community has identified as a minimum standard for notability for athletes. I consider ESPN to be an independent, reliable source. Aside, if a shockingly brief article is created that nobody visits, is it a burden on the project? I say no. Neil916 (Talk) 07:58, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

But they're disruptive in thier slap-dash nature of creation. Take a look a few threads down on this very page for a similar incident that lead the user to an indef block for creating rubbish. This "article" is in the same league as the dross this user has 02blythed. Yes, they're notable, but the clean-up work needed far outweighs the rationale of keeping them (in the mainspace). Lugnuts 16:22, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Lugnuts, I'm not seeing the disruptive aspect. Aside from the fact that I have no interest in people who play professional cricket in Bangladesh, I have no issues with an editor creating an article like this as long as the subject matter meets the notability guidelines, and according to WP:ATHLETE, he does. Is that too low a bar? Perhaps, but that's an issue to take up there. The "Four Days' Wonder" article you linked to is different, since there isn't even a complete sentence. 02blythed created articles that had what little information he had from the one source that he cited, and included an infobox and a reference. Again, I'm just not seeing the problem people are trying to solve with the mass deletions or moving to draft space. Neil916 (Talk) 18:48, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

It's disruptive, as he's been told time and time again not to do this, but continued, even after been given guidance on what to include for a basic stub. The very diff you link to here for Aamer Butt (cricketer) doesn't really help the reader. Key terms are not linked/explained (Faisalabad, List A cricket, etc) and other words are linked to the wrong thing (he never played for the "Pakistan cricket team"). And finally, there is just one category. Is this person alive, example? If you still can't see the problem, then fine, but for someone who has been here for more than 11 years that is very worrying. Lugnuts 18:57, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I second Lugnuts's comments. Article age is not a valid rationale for keeping junk in the mainspace. You say you would support modifications to WP:ATHLETE, presumably ones which would support this proposal, but per WP:IAR I'm sure it's clear that the creation of these articles goes against the spirit of Misplaced Pages and is a mere exploitation of the letter of the law. DrStrauss talk 19:26, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I looked at his talk page to try to find where he has been told time and time again to not do this, and this matter appears to have been previously discussed at length at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cricket/Archive_81#New_articles_by_User:02blythed. After scanning that, I didn't go back and finish looking through the user's talk page, but I'm still opposed to moving these articles to draft space. Neil916 (Talk) 19:35, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

DrStrauss, a few notes about your comment. To clarify, I don't remember saying that the age of an article should be a reason to keep it around. I said that the articles should be kept around because they're about subjects that the community has decided are notable enough. Second, these articles aren't "junk", unlike the example given by Lugnuts above with the "Four Days' Wonder" article. They're very short, and some of them may contain grammatical or typographical errors. Those aren't reasons to delete, or "pseudo-delete" by moving into draft space. Sometimes articles about topics that not many editors are interested in sit around as a stub for years. Then someone comes along and makes it more useful. Sometimes not. Still not a valid reason for deletion. I would likely support a change to WP:ATHLETE, probably along the lines of "one professional match in a sport's highest level in a country" is a standard that is too low, but I'd want to see that discussion before cementing my opinion. Some sports have very few matches in a year, so one match is notable enough (think Olympics). But trying to use that as a reason to apply IAR is, in my opinion, the exact opposite of the situation where IAR should be used.

As an additional note, it might be worthwhile to invite the participants of the Cricket Wikiproject for their input, since it appears from my link above that they addressed it a few months ago. Neil916 (Talk) 20:55, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

• Post-close procedural comment: I'm currently sifting through them with AWB. I'll provide another update after draftification. DrStrauss talk 08:07, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
• Done all - speaking with WP:CRIC now. DrStrauss talk 13:02, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
• Note, User:DrStrauss has draftified a number of sourced articles not created by by User:02blythed. Hack (talk) 15:33, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

@Hack: and as discussed at WT:CRIC, those were either erroneous or have now been improved so that they can be moved back to the mainspace. DrStrauss talk 15:35, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of Monuments in Nepal - drafts now deleted

Hi all,

A load of lists were moved to draftspace per the outcome of this MfD (this isn't about that outcome, but I agree with it). The drafts have been in draftspace there since January and were recently tagged and deleted G13 (again, not really about that, and technically a correct tag n' delete).

Someone on IRC asked me to restore these (~200+) drafts as they state these lists are in active use for Wiki Loves Monuments. I began restoring some, then realised that these were valid deletions/tags and I didn't want to step on any toes. I'd appreciate some input on if these should be mass restored per Misplaced Pages:Requests for undeletion/G13

Pinging and notifying Anthony Bradbury (who deleted the drafts - again, would like to stress these were good deletes in my book) and Legacypac (who tagged them - again, good tags) -- There'sNoTime 11:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I brought this issue up on IRC earlier, and was referred here. These lists are in use for (among others) Wiki Loves Monuments, which is due to start in 2 days in Nepal. A (very) rapid solution would be appreciated - you can probably imagine that this is especially untimely.

Already the move to draft was quite inconvenient (see among others phabricator:T173726), but I understand that apparently these articles belong in the main namespace. Which is fine, but in the discussion linked the opinions were quite all over the place, which made it hard to act upon. That resulted eventually in moving to the draft namespace, without any warning that this would be deleted after six months if not moved after that. It sounded like a semi-permanent solution. For now, the best seems to be to asap restore the pages, so that the infrastructure is at least back, and then ask the local project team to write an introduction, and add the reference that exists in the central list article also to the district lists. There'sNoTime: your username is very appliccable here :) effeietsanders 12:11, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I would support (and could help with) restoring the lists in the draft space. As soon as they get sourced, they can even be moved to the article space.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:16, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: Do you have any suggestions on how to automate the restoration of these drafts? (if and when it happens) -- There'sNoTime 12:53, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

No, not really. I am afraid we need to do it by hand (which, again, I will be willing to participate in). I assume there is a list somewhere or the main page which links to all other pages.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:55, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Drat.. Draft:List of Monuments in Kosi Zone (and its list) is what I restored before opening this discussion. The red links on the template link to each list. I'm sure a list could be generated -- There'sNoTime 13:00, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

We do not ebven need this, the zone article pages (which are linked to in the template) are most likely just lists which contain links to real lists. 200 is easily doable as soon as we are sure there is no resistance to the plan (in which case I can take an ownership of the drafts).--Ymblanter (talk) 13:04, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

This search may also be helpful -- There'sNoTime 13:05, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Please also restore the talkpages :) I don't know what's on them... but it may or may not be relevant. effeietsanders 13:14, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

@There'sNoTime: G13 explicitly allows undeletion at REFUND. That's really all that needs to be said here. ~ Rob₁₃ 13:07, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I am starting undeletion--Ymblanter (talk) 13:13, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Just wanted to get some second and third opinions, but you're quite right -- There'sNoTime 13:17, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

• I'm not happy with the result of that MfD. Those lists had a purpose, and they belong in a wikiproject, where editors slowly collaborate. They do not belong in DraftSpace, which is a short term scratch space for things no one cares about, where nobody will find them and do anything with them. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:10, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

• I agree with SmokeyJoe with the proviso that they should be in article space once the main problem with the lists are fixed. I have pinged the original author on commons and am still awaiting a reply. Once some information was forthcoming I would have done the WP:Refund myself. He seems currently to be involved with WLM only in an offwiki way, so once the lists are back in draftspace I will try to contact him offwiki. Any non admin related banter should go to Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Historic sites#Nepal Agathoclea (talk) 14:12, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

• • • @SmokeyJoe and Agathoclea: The place to disagree with MFD discussions is WP:DRV. I see that both of you contributed to that MFD so to complain 7 months later that the MFD was invalid seems to be in poor taste. Hasteur (talk) 14:57, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
• Have the pages been restored yet? I'm happy to lend a hand doing so. It also strikes me that while draft space may be a slightly awkward fit, they are appropriate for the Misplaced Pages namespace. The main priority should be restoring the pages, but moving them back to Misplaced Pages namespace should be considered. Nev1 (talk) 14:04, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Apparently some of the lists have been deleted as R3 instead of G13. That appears an admin error, not a conscious decision. Agathoclea (talk) 14:19, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Hopefully a full list is at User:Mz7/monuments Agathoclea (talk) 14:24, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

No - there are several different page creators. See my comments below. Legacypac (talk) 15:29, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Actually, that was where I looked first. I know it's not 100% accurate, but I ended up finding a half-dozen extras. Primefac (talk) 15:32, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

• I think I got the rest. und-batch, anyone ;) Primefac (talk) 14:32, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
  • That looks useful, I might have to spend some time getting to used to Twinkle for future use. Nev1 (talk) 14:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
• I think these restored drafts again qualify for immediate WP:G13 deletion under the newly revamped G13 definition (" not been edited (excluding bot edits and maintenance actions such as tagging) in over six months"}. But then no one would be disruptive, would they? Thincat (talk) 14:54, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

  If a certain G13-tag-happy individual starts re-nominating these pages, then they're clearly not paying attention to anything. Primefac (talk) 14:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

  The point of WP:REFUND is to restore pages that they may (with the inference being quite quickly) be worked on, either in userspace or draftspace. If the articles were refunded to draftspace and no one touched them for a month 6 months (correction per below), anyone would be justified in re-tagging them. If they were refunded elsewhere (userspace) its likely no one would notice. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:00, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

  @Thincat: Under the plain text term and general practice if a REFUND has taken place that immediately disqualifies a page from G13 for at least 6 months (reset the clock). Some editors think that a REFUND isn't disqualifying nor is other editor initiated actions (like nominating for MFD). I hold myself personally to the higher standard of 6 months unedited really means 6 months unedited (not looking at who or what made the change). Hasteur (talk) 15:01, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I tagged G13 tagged nearly all of them because I found the linked Deletion discussion and because some of them were amoung the very oldest pages in Draft space. Not a one had a single reference so I coukd hardly suggest promotion. Two good ways to see if you got them all - there was a master page that linked to Regional pages that linked to local area pages. It was one of the first I CSD'd. Second way is to sort the Muzicbot Stale Draft report by name because they all start with List of ... My User:Legacypac/CSD_log is an incomplete record as it was edit conflicting until I archived.

In fairness to the deletion discussion participants, no one knew G13 was coming months later. Not really sure why the people in Nepal have created unreferenced incomplete and in many cases 'lists of one item' pages over at least 3 successive years and appearently abandoned them all. Rather than carrying on this way they should finish and publish something.

@User:Thincat where did you get the idea anyone would re-G13 a restored page immediately. That would be very circular. I've only done that purely by accident once that I know of and only because it popped up on the Stale Draft report. I try to watch the REFUND list for problematic pages and I've sent a couple REFUNDed pages to MfD for various reasons like spam.

Anyway, sorry for accidentally creating work on pages that truly looked abandoned. I hope the Nepal people can bring them to publishing standard or remove them once no longe needed. Legacypac (talk) 15:27, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

If these pages are requested for Misplaced Pages:Wiki Loves Monuments, then would it possibly be a good idea to move these pages ato be subpages of that page? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:02, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I think that is a good suggestion, perhaps when the event is over (it is imminent, I think?). For what it's worth, I think everybody has acted in good faith here and it has been a peculiar set of circumstances that led to these pages being deleted. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:16, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

A subpage of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Historic sites is under discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Historic sites#Nepal but due to the issues raised at phabricator:T173726 that should happen after WLM. Ideally we can use the next 6 month to resolve the issues anyway and make just one single move to article space. Agathoclea (talk) 20:14, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Do we have a way to ensure that the lists will be be moved in one go, and not one by one? Agathoclea (talk) 10:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Let us do it step by step. Now there is prematurely to move them (sources were added to one list during the night, but others are still unsourced).--Ymblanter (talk) 11:41, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

That is what I mean. Even though one list might be ready it should not be moved until all are ready. My question would be if there is a way to notify the draft patrolers. Agathoclea (talk) 11:47, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

@Effeietsanders: There is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 August 27#Category:Wiki Loves Earth 2014 Nepal and I can foresee that a similar discussion might start for the WLM categories. Would this present a problem? Also note that the first draft has been moved to mainspace, breaking the pack. Agathoclea (talk) 15:53, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Disclosure and request for consideration

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

When I signed up for a Misplaced Pages account a few months ago, I barely remembered any of the following at first, and I was only intending to make a handful of edits anyway, so I did not expect this to be of any consequence. But I quickly became sucked back in and ended up becoming an active editor in a matter of days. Even after I began to fully recall the following information, I at first thought it to be of no consequence as I hadn't touched the "edit" button in six and a half years. And besides, my editing pattern is so radically different now than it was before that it would be extremely unlikely that anyone would ever tie me to my previous period of activity on Misplaced Pages. However, this has been really bothering me the past few days, and I'm feeling that it would be deceptive and dishonest to withhold this information any longer, so I am presenting the following information to allow the Misplaced Pages community to make a judgement:

Seven years ago in 2010, I edited as User:Access Denied, and after a horrendously disruptive sockpuppetry-fueled vandalism spree in December 2010 and January 2011 I became subject to a community ban, which I deserved 100%. I sincerely apologize to the Misplaced Pages community for the disruption I created and for everyone whose time I wasted forcing them to clean up after my juvenile mess.

My case for why I should be allowed to return is this: the standard offer for banned editors requires them to stay away for six months; I had been away for over six years before I created this account late last month. I have matured greatly in the past six years and no longer have any inclination whatsoever to repeat any of the behaviors that led to my (fully deserved) community ban. I am truly, wholeheartedly sorry for the harm I caused Misplaced Pages and I believe that my edits over the past month show that I am now here to build an encyclopedia, which I was definitely not here to do six years ago.

I would be very pleased if the community is willing to allow me back, even with conditions; however, I fully understand if that will not be the case. I will not edit any page other than this one until the community has decided on a course of action.

Thank you, CJK09 (talk) 07:06, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

• Lift ban, no conditions. I do actually remember User:Access Denied, and it was indeed a bad episode Oh, no, I've already forgotten ;-). But six years is a long time, and the confession for what does seem like something nobody would have ever noticed counts well with me. Taking a quick look at a few recent edits, I don't see any problems - I haven't done any close inspection, but I'm seeing what looks like properly sourced additions, collegial interactions with others, etc. Unless someone can find anything seriously wrong, I'd say welcome back. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:30, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
• Per Zebedee This is a healthy record, with the worse thing apparent being a sloppiness in the use of edit-summaries :p As BsZ says, after seven years and the unliklihood that we would have ever found them out, I suggest that all bets are, as they say, off. Any issues that do arise would be dealt with in the usual fashion. — fortunavelut luna 11:00, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support - if AD had requested, by email, to be permitted to return after 6 years, there's a decent chance we would have allowed it while keeping a close eye on him/her. Given that (s)he created an account, used it for a month without causing suspicion, and then came forward and admitted it could only make things better - and I certainly believe that (s)he genuinely forgot the episode. The user had everything to loose, and nothing to gain except for his/her own feeling of doing the right thing, by admittting tis, and souldn't be penalized for it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:49, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support As the editor in this form clearly shows, they ARE here to build an encyclopedia. Thank you for acknowledging your previous ban in the past and I would feel comfortable in lifting it at this point. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:53, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support, regardless of whether they forgot the episode. Κσυπ Cyp   12:57, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support given their honesty and being forthright enough to come forward, let bygones be bygones. Blackmane (talk) 13:15, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support per request. People can grow up. Editor could have continued editing an probably no one would have noticed. Editor is now clearly WP:HERE Access Denied who? Welcome, CJK09! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:33, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support. I find reformed vandals genuinely puzzling, and even more puzzling when they become excellent contributors, but it can and does happen, and this seems to be one of those cases. Softlavender (talk) 13:43, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support No user who is banned cannot be unbanned and this seems one of those cases where it is right to lift the ban. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:55, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support Let the clouds disappear. Alex Shih 14:04, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support per B!sZ and others. We all make mistakes. Miniapolis 22:09, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support per above. -FASTILY 00:00, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support per B!sZ. Regardless of what the user did six years ago, their contributions here under this account seem to be productive. 1000 edits in a month without any problems I can find suggests someone who is now a net positive for the encyclopedia. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 11:14, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Someone needed to look into bizarre IP behavior...

Can someone with some more time than me look into 61.6.172.206 (talk · contribs) and 82.19.95.171 (talk · contribs). The first is making edits to various articles about media networks, while the second follows on and reverts it a few minutes later. I am busy IRL or would look more into it. --Jayron32 16:50, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

• I blocked the first for unverified and unexplained edits, and warned the other for not explaining what they're doing. I have no doubt that at least one of these has an account listed somewhere in the LTA or SPI section. Drmies (talk) 03:02, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

ECP of Kappa Alpha Order

I note that Kappa Alpha Order has been extended-confirmed protected by Plastikspork. This page hadn't been semied for a while. I think the action was intended to prevent a recurrence of the edits by an auto-confirmed editor on 15th of August. A warning would appear to be more appropriate, and, if problems persisted, a block.

Perhaps I have missed something, so I thought I thought I would bring it up here.

Yaris678 (talk) 10:12, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Have you discussed this with Plastikspork before coming here? His talk page should be your first port of call. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:13, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I have tagged him in the post above. His user page says he is semi retired. Despite this, I probably would have gone to the protecting admin's talk page first for other forms of protection. But I thought the point of logging each instance of ECP at AN was so that it can be discussed at AN. Yaris678 (talk) 11:48, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Looking for attribution of a translation copied from Misplaced Pages

s:For Freedom and Truth was copied from For Freedom and Truth on 2006-10-22. There is no attribution of the translator on Wikisource. Is there any attribution of the translator in the deleted edits of For Freedom and Truth? Or is it an original translation by Misplaced Pages editors? Any assistance will be appreciated. Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:30, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

(diff) 23:56, 10 November 2006 . . Newmanbe (talk | contribs | block) (309 bytes) ({{ subst:prod|Source material that is not acceptable on the English Wikisource (Unknown Translator)}}) Agathoclea (talk) 13:45, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

As far as I can make out, it came from the book: Bibo, Istvan (1991). Democracy, Revolution, Self-Determination. New York: Columbia University Press. pp. pp. 325-327. ISBN 0-88033-214-X. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:49, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

The edit I found first was reverted due to the apparent copyvio Agathoclea (talk) 13:52, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it's a bit confusing. There's a bit of a debate about whether it was suitable for wikisource on the deleted talk page. The text in English appeared to have been copied from the book and was thus a breach of the translator's copyright rather than the text in the original language being put on the appropriate wikisource and then translated into English with GFDL permissions. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:16, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

AIV and RFPP are backlogged

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

Thirty-seven pending requests at RFPP and sixteen AIV reports at the time of this posting. —MRD2014  03:04, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

CheckUser and Oversight appointments 2017: Announcement

Cross posted from Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#CheckUser and Oversight appointments 2017: Announcement.

The Arbitration Committee has resolved to perform a round of Checkuser and Oversight appointments. The arbitrators overseeing this will be GorillaWarfare, Ks0stm, and Mkdw. This year, the usernames of all applicants will be shared with the Functionaries team, and they will be requested to assist in the vetting process.

• 1 September: Request for candidates to apply.
• 23:59 UTC, 12 September: Candidate submissions close, vetting begins.
• 13 September: The Arbitration Committee and current Functionaries will vet the candidates.
• 15 September: Vetting ends, successful candidates contacted by 18 September.
• 18 September: Candidates published on-wiki, community feedback invited.
• 23:59 UTC, 29 September: Community comments end.
• By 11 October: Appointed candidates announced

For the Arbitration Committee, GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:29, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Discuss this

Administrators' newsletter – September 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2017).

Administrator changes

Nakon • Scott

Sverdrup • Thespian • Elockid • James086 • Ffirehorse • Celestianpower • Boing! said Zebedee

Guideline and policy news

• ACTRIAL, a research experiment that restricts article creation to autoconfirmed users, will begin on September 7. It will run for six months. You can learn more about the research specifics at meta:Research:Autoconfirmed article creation trial, while Misplaced Pages talk:Autoconfirmed article creation trial is probably the best venue for general discussion.
• Following an RfC, WP:G13 speedy deletion criterion now applies to any page in the draftspace that has not been edited in six months. There is a bot-generated report, updated daily, to help identify potentially qualifying drafts that have not been submitted through articles for creation.

Technical news

• You will now get a notification when someone tries to log in to your account and fails. If they try from a device that has logged into your account before, you will be notified after five failed attempts. You can also set in your preferences to get an email when someone logs in to your account from a new device or IP address, which may be encouraged for admins and accounts with sensitive permissions.
• Syntax highlighting is now available as a beta feature (more info). This may assist administrators and template editors when dealing with intricate syntax of high-risk templates and system messages.
• In your notification preferences, you can now block specific users from pinging you. This functionality will soon be available for Special:EmailUser as well.

Arbitration

• Applications for CheckUser and Oversight are being accepted by the Arbitration Committee until September 12. Community discussion of the candidates will begin on September 18.

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Catholicism (redirect) and Catholicism (term)

Few days ago, after a short discussion, consensus was reached to rename the article Catholicism as Catholicism (term), and then to redirect the term Catholicism to Catholic Church. All of that was OK, but so far no further actions were made in order to adjust relevant links in numerous articles. There are literally hundreds of articles and thousands of other pages that have the link Catholicism, originally pointing to the article that is now called Catholicism (term). That original connection is now broken, after recent moves and lack of further actions. In order to preserve the original and authentic use of the term in all those articles, it would be needed to edit them by replacing links "Catholicism" (now pointing to a different article, dedicated to one denomination), with updated links to general article "Catholicism (term)", thus restoring the connection with the original content. Can it be done? Sorabino (talk) 18:05, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

This is probably best discussed at Talk:Catholicism (term) or maybe Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Catholicism. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:25, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorabino, administrators don't have any abilities to fix this that you don't. From a technical perspective, your best route is to leave most non-mainspace pages alone; any active project pages should be updated, but don't edit old discussions, of course. There's really no way for a bot to identify which links need to be fixed. Therefore, the only real options are (1) find all the links and fix them manually, or (2) find all the links, identify which ones are right and which ones need to be fixed, and compile a list of all the ones that need to be fixed. A bot can then be used to fix these links; WP:CONTEXTBOT specifically permits context-sensitive bot runs, like this one, when the bot's just going off a list that's been compiled by a human. Nyttend (talk) 12:25, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Nyttend, thank you very much for that explanation. I guessed that it wont be possible, but I had to ask, since this problem now affects hundreds of articles. It would be quite impossible to edit them manually, not only because of the scale of that job, but mainly because each edit would involve the assessment of a particular use of the term in every article, and that might lead us to new problems. There might be another solution: maybe we could upgrade redirect Catholicism into a disambiguation page, with list of terms like: Catholicism (term) for the general use, "Roman Catholicism" (pointing to the Catholic Church), "Anglican Catholicism" (pointing to the Anglican Communion), "Old Catholicism" (pointing to the Old-Catholic Church) and so on ... Would that allow us to send disambiguation notices for articles that contain link Catholicism? If that is possible, every author will get the chance to make his own corrections. Sorabino (talk) 12:43, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation notices only happen when you add a new link. It would be useless for any extant links. By the way, I agree with your assessment of this as a large issue; WhatLinksHere showed me 4,382 links to catholicism from mainspace only. But why change the targets? Catholicism is the Church of Rome, not Anglicanism or Eastern Orthodoxy or anything else. Links really meaning to go to Catholicism (term) are going to be rather few and far between. Nyttend (talk) 12:51, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Nyttend, I agree with you on that. During the original discussion on Talk:Catholicism (term) few days ago, I supported the proposal for redirecting Catholicism to Catholic Church since that is the most common meaning of the term. But I also warned about some technical issues. Unfortunately, discussion on this very important topic was closed without much participation. For example, there was no notification about that discussion on Portal talk:Catholicism and Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Catholicism. And now, the move is contested on several grounds, since new proposals and discussions were initiated. Thank you for additional explanations, I guess there will be no easy solution for this problem. Sorabino (talk) 13:12, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

IP Vandal

This IP is vandalizing this article here S/He had been reverted MANY times before and warned yet it still continues. This IP needs to be blocked immediately. If s/he hasn't been already ♠Dinah♠ 🎤 02:33, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

There is an LTA filter (846) specifically added to catch more than one vandals in a specific IP range, now we just have to add 172.56.0.0/16 to it. Both ranges belong to T-Mobile USA and are basically shared IP. -★- PlyrStar93. _{→Message me. 🖉←} 02:37, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Good. I hope it works. I tried to revert them however... mobile view sucks. I would've helped more if I could, sorry ^-^ ♠Dinah♠ 🎤 02:47, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

My account was wrongly blocked

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

Hello. My account was wrongly blocked in a sockpuppet investigation. I asked for help on this board about a week ago but my request for help was deleted. I am not and never have been a sockpuppet; I am entirely nonfictional. Please can someone get my account unblocked. Beth Holmes 1. Transposed from talk by Winged Blades at 08:19, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Beth Holmes 1 is the account that is blocked. Power~enwiki (talk) 08:25, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

That account has talkpage access, so they need to post an unblock request using the {{Unblock}} template. It's a checkuser block so we cannot simply lift it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:42, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

I've left a message on User Talk:Beth Holmes 1 advising her to make a request using the {{unblock}} template. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:35, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

And similar advice on the talk page of the IP. Nothing more to be done I think. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:50, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

What is the blocking policy here?

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

Hello, in general, what would lead to block of talk pages on English wikipedia?

I am curious since I was - on Swedish wikipedia – subject to a 2 week ban on the mere suspicion of using a second account. Besides from being incorrect, it was done without any attempt to actually establish whether the account was indeed mine or not. Furthermore, the ban – as is regularly occurring on Swedish wikipedia – was done banning even "talk" on one's own page. Consequently I was not able to protest the blocking. The ban also extended to sending e-mail to admins, and unlike here there is no general page for unblocking requests is you are banned.

Does this policy seem similar to the one here, or Swedish wikipedia admins use much more severe rules? Hmc1282171021 (talk) 10:02, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Does Check user exist there in Swedish Misplaced Pages? You can use your talk page. They think you are https://sv.wikipedia.org/Anv%C3%A4ndardiskussion:Hmcblockad. And you are not blocked indefinitely. Administrators here will not help you. --Marvellous Spider-Man 10:06, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't know the policy on Swedish Misplaced Pages, nor if they follow it, but here you're likely to retain talk page access unless you (or any related accounts) are known to be a time sink. The policy is at WP:OPTIONS: It says it normally requires "continued abuse of the talk page". But in any case, the English policy is not so relevant and as Spider-Man says, there's nothing we can do from here. -- zzuuzz 10:18, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

I absolutely don't think you can (or ought to) do anything about the policies of Swedish wikipedia. I was honestly simply interested in knowing if this was a general for all of wikipedia (how to block), or if this was different. I know some other policies differs, so I was merely curious. Thank you for answering my question Marvellous and zzuuzz, it's much appreciated. (As an aside, the account Hmcblockad was one I created after being blocked in an attempt to access the e-mail function to send an e-mail to an admin and argue my case. Unfortunately, it was blocked due to "unsuitable name" merely 3 minutes after creation, too quickly for me to even use it to send an e-mail 😳) -- Hmc1282171021 (talk) 11:38, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

If your description of things at sv:wp is accurate and routine, things are a good deal more severe there than here. Among other things, an acknowledged sockpuppet will not be blocked here as long as neither account engages in disruption. See WP:SOCK#LEGIT; the big problems with sockpuppetry are when you evade sanctions (of course no problem if your main account doesn't do anything wrong) or when you pretend to be a different person (not a problem with an openly acknowledged account). Not knowing how they customarily work, I can't say whether or not the situation you describe is routine. Nyttend (talk) 12:14, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

At first I thought this was routine, seeing multiple such blocks in a rather short period of time. However, searching through the block log, it appears that even for sv:wp such blocks are reserved for accounts that either use an obviously offensive name or starts vandalising as first edit. Consequently the blocks (mine and the others I saw) were rather out of the ordinary. -- Hmc1282171021 (talk) 19:53, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

What is the user-IP policy?

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

I need clarification, please. See the report on Anonymous44. We have two logged in users here, @Anonymous44:, who was reported at AIV by @Pillowfluffyhead:. This was later declined by another user. My question, is why is it allowed for both these users to edit as IPs? Both are up front about it, noting on their user pages that they mostly edit on their IP addresses. Pillowfluffyhead has a link to their IP . They're not hiding anything. But isn't this counter-productive to how Misplaced Pages is set up? If they can operate as IPs, why can't everybody do it? Why do others get blocked for doing it? Why don't the sockmasters just list their socks on their user page and be up front about using an alias or two (or ten or twenty)? We're leaving it up to admins, very human admins, to discern intent of purpose? This seems like a conflict in policy to me, to allow some users to do this but not others. — Maile (talk) 11:40, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Clarification. I don't mostly edit under my IP. I had never edited Misplaced Pages before until the IP that I linked on my user page. I will no longer be editing under that IP except accidentally, since I have created this account. I just created this account yesterday because I was tired of having to enter a CAPTCHA for external links even when reverting vandalism. I was also tired of getting good-faith edits blocked by abuse filters. As such, unless I accidentally don't login, all of my contributions will be via this account.

The IP addresss that Anonymous44 was editing under tripped the abuse filter that is targeting this banned user, and therefore I reported both the IP and the account for block evasion. @Kuru: then clarified that this was a false positive

I also have to question whether Anonymous44 is a username violation, since it could give the impression of an unregistered user. Pillowfluffyhead (talk) 11:48, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

@Pillowfluffyhead: your editing history bears out the veracity of what you say. The IP began editing on Aug 31, 2017, and ceased yesterday when you created your user account. Also, it's evident by your history that you are focused on our AIV edits, which is good. But for clarification, I still wish a seasoned admin or two here would provide some clarification on when a user account steps over the line editing with an IP. I understand it sometimes happens for one reason or another, but when is it a case of vandalism? Anonymous44 has been editing under that name since 2006. But if is of concern, you might file at WP:UAA. — Maile (talk) 13:56, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

@Pillowfluffyhead: Insofar as the username itself is concerned, I don't consider it to be a username violation. I don't think there is a good case to be made in terms of it implying shared use, being misleading in a manner that complicates interaction or building the encyclopedia, or causing confusion. There might be a better case if there are diffs of interactions that demonstrate some kind of confusion on the part of other editors, but this case doesn't seem like a violation to me. I JethroBT 19:49, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

@Maile66: I think WP:Sock puppetry is very clear on this. It's sock puppetry if someone is creating the illusion that they are several people and using it to achieve something that they shouldn't and otherwise wouldn't achieve (creating an illusion of support, breaking the 3RR etc.). That is what people are blocked for. By default, everything else is allowed. I am not obliged to log in (which is also what the policy page explicitly says), as I don't cause anyone any harm by not logging in, and whether I choose to do so or not is nobody else's business. I am not obliged to have an account at all either, and I've only created this account in order to be able to do some things that unregistered users can't do (start new articles, edit semi-protected pages, etc.). --Anonymous44 (talk) 19:19, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

@Maile66: I don't think there is a policy specific to folks who regularly use IPs and registered accounts, so I think it's best to rely on the policies we have on alternative accounts generally. I get that these circumstances have a bad look to them on the surface, but I think if Anonymous44 is not contributing to the same pages with their accounts, misleading contributors, being disruptive, or otherwise violating some policy (all inappropriate uses of an alternative account), then I don't think there is anything actionable here. Anonymous44, have you edited the same pages with your IP and registered accounts before? If so, this should be avoided in the future even if you're editing constructively. I realize page protection might present some difficulties for pages you've edited while not logged in, so I think it's best to exercise your own judgment in those cases. I JethroBT 20:09, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Certainly, in the past ten years or so there have been some occasions on which I have edited the same page within a relatively short period of time, e.g. when I have been forced to log in because it has been protected in the meantime, or when I have created the page myself and then gone back to editing without signing in as usual. In the present case I edited the same page with my account because, while editing as an IP, I was misindentified with a banned vandal who apparently had a similar IP address, which triggered an abuse filter, and all of my constructive edits were automatically reverted because of that. The point of logging in was, first, to prove that I was not that particular vandal and, second, to be taken seriously in general. IPs are, unfortunately, often assumed to be vandals or idiots by default around these parts, so you often have to show that you have a username in order to get people to even listen to you at all or consider you fully human. I do not edit the same pages both logged in and logged out in the course of edit conflicts as a way to break the 3RR or create the illusion of support. It may happen that I log in if I see that someone assumes that I'm a vandal, or that I am generally not to be taken seriously, just because I'm an IP. I cannot predict in advance whether the need for me to log in will arise (even if that happens extremely rarely), so I can't preclude the possibility that I will end up editing the same page both logged out and logged in.--Anonymous44 (talk) 21:03, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

@Anonymous44: Apologies, I misread a line in WP:Sockpuppetry (Contributing to the same page with clearly linked, legitimate, alternative accounts (e.g. editing the same page with your main and public computer account or editing a page using your main account that your bot account edited) is not forbidden.), so my advice earlier to be cautious about editing the same page is not really warranted in this case. The appropriate advice is just to consider whether any editing you might do with both accounts could be understood as an inappropriate use for alternative accounts. But seeing as there is no such problem here, it seems to me you've been doing a-OK with that. :) I JethroBT 21:30, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad that this issue is resolved, then. Cheers! --Anonymous44 (talk) 21:46, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

@I JethroBT: thank you for noticing where you, and perhaps other administrators, were mistaken in this Administrators Noticeboard discussion. Would you have any objection to my using this as a teaching example for administrators and would-be administrators on the English Misplaced Pages? One of the problems that we have seen on this wiki is where new editors or unregistered editors perceive that they have been treated badly by more experienced editors. The WMF is currently trying to improve participation on the English Misplaced Pages. Hopefully if we can make attitudes towards new editors and recently registered editors more welcoming, the overall participation rate will improve. MPS1992 (talk) 00:10, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

@MPS1992: Permission granted, you're welcome to use my comments here as you please. I agree very strongly with the idea that admins should be upfront about errors in our own judgment and willing to revisit their decisions without getting defensive or egotistical about it. It's not always easy, but it's the right thing to do. Editors should also strive to do the same thing in cases where they are making other kinds of decisions on the project, but it's especially important for admins because the consequences of bad judgement can be more severe and lasting. I JethroBT 00:40, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism

Admins have a look at Nata Pavlova as there is a lot of vandalism via author as well as IP --✝iѵɛɳ२२४० 13:20, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Zavialovaleksei has again created the article inspite Admin user:Nyttend's deletion and again the article has been deleted. If the user continues to vandalise please take necessary action on it.Thanks @Nyttend: for your immediate support --✝iѵɛɳ२२४० 14:22, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

The page has been deleted and protected for a week. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:59, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Full prot for E/W and discussion needing closure (and PS about Marek)

Full protection is currently active at Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals for an edit war over the use of "illegal alien" vs. "undocumented migrant" or variations thereof. Since there has been no resolution of this dispute by parties including Home Lander, Volunteer Marek and Snooganssnoogans, and the relevant substantial discussion at Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_66#The_use_of_the_term_.22illegal_alien.22 has not been closed, I have extended full protection by another three days.

While there have been previous discussions on this issue, the current edit war started at the end of July (!).

There is clearly a desire by some editors to continue editing this article directly. I propose the following:

• If no admin closure is made of the above-listed discussion before the full protection runs out, any further revert should result in an immediate temporary block as a first resort
• If an admin closure is made of the above-listed discussion and a consensus found, any further revert against that new consensus should result in an immediate temporary block as a first resort

The third possibility (discussion closed but no consensus) has no clear resolution in my mind. Policy would probably suggest further full protection if the edit war continues - an unsatisfactory outcome.

PS: Just saw since starting to draft this last night that talk page discussion has flared up again. IMO, Volunteer Marek continues to display a broad spectrum of antagonistic behaviours as well as arguments for ownership (both evidenced at just this one diff, but there's plenty more).

The IP addresses involved in the dispute with Marek that he alleges to be the same person, map to Illinois, Michigan, Ohio and Ontario, fwiw.

So in conclusion, I think Marek’s behaviour needs further advice. I suspect he will not listen to me as a short while ago I endorsed Atsme’s suggestion that he reign it in. Perhaps nothing but another block will help. Certainly, I think that closing that discussion would improve the situation w.r.t. perhaps establishing a consensus that could then be enforced on a more specific basis. I'd like to see this not needing permanent admin attention.

Samsara 10:14, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek continues to display a broad spectrum of antagonistic behaviours as well as arguments for ownership - oh, nonsense. I literally have made something like 6 edits to the article, most if not all of them have been reverts of disruptive IP. Then I participated in talk, which I guess what makes Samsara think this is "ownership" of an article. Wtf do they want me to do? Not discuss on talk? Not edit the article? This is some strange notion of "ownership".

More generally, what Samsara doesn't tell you is that this is several long standing editors reverting a WP:SPA IP editor, who's using several addresses (yes, from "Ohio and Michigan"... on the two sides of a narrow border. Also all the edits made by the various IPs are *exactly* the same) (the IP's editor's knowledge of Misplaced Pages policy and obscure drama board pages also strongly suggests this is a sock most likely of a banned user).

In July, as a result of this another admin semi-protected the page. This was the appropriate response here. However, this time around Samsara decided to fully protect the page, and has attacked the long time editors on the talk page, thus enabling the disruptive IP ). For example, when another user User:Chris Howard pointed out to Samsara that full protection wasn't necessary and that this was a case of just one IP causing trouble, Samsara responded by making personal attacks against them .

A similar situation arose earlier on a different article , where again, Samsara fully protected an article where the problem was just disruptive IP editing. And likewise, when they were politely asked why they chose full not semi, they responded with the same type of obnoxious "my way or the highway" assholery as with their personal attacks on Chris Howard (and myself, but nevermind) on the DACA article.

Also, I have no idea why Samsara is restoring vandalism by an IP in that edit. What gives? Do they just not bother looking at the actual edits before storming in with the revert and/or protect button?

I don't know what's going on here. At the very least this is "conduct unbecoming". An admin simply should not act in such a - unprovoked - disrespectful manner towards editors who've been here a long time. When someone asks you why you took an admin action replying with some version of "screw you, I'm an admin, I do what I want!!!" is not helpful and understandably pisses off people who don't like being treated like dirt. There is a strange pattern to Samsara's actions where this full protection always happens to protect the POV edits of some disruptive IP, edits which probably would otherwise have no chance of surviving in the article for too long. But who knows, more likely they're just very sloppy with their tools.

I'm not asking for a desysop or a block of anything of the sort, but someone does need to tell Samsara to step back, stop waving their admin pistol in people's faces (this "another block" bullshit should stop too) and show a modicum of respect for regular editors. Volunteer Marek  13:49, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh and also, the whole "you dare to challenge my decision??? Here, I'll extend full protection out of spite for a few more days!!!!" is just childish and immature on Samsara's part. Again, I'm not the only - or even the first one - to have raised questions about whether full protection was necessary. That was another user. Here Samsara appears to be just purposefully acting like a jerk. Volunteer Marek  14:07, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Neither edit (1 2) you allege are PA's actually are, the first isn't even by Samsara. Perhaps you wish to restate that? Kleuske (talk) 16:54, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

I think what Volunteer Marek refers to as personal attacks is intended to refer to this edit, alleging I was "just arguing for the sake of it". in my reply I therefore pointed out that there was no need for WP:PA, meaning that the person in question should not go down that route. --Chris Howard (talk) 17:41, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

I find it hard to see a PA in that, It may not be the nicest comment, but that does not make it a PA. Kleuske (talk) 17:45, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

The page should probably be tagged for WP:ARBAPDS. --Izno (talk) 14:26, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with Samsara's request, for the reason the protection level is suboptimal for the article. As far as I can see, the protection level is too high (it is full, whereas semi would have sufficed for preventing all edit wars of July and August) and too short (mere two weeks, whereas the edit warring flares up whenever the protection is removed). An edit war between IP's and new editors on one side and confirmed IP's on the other side could normally be resolved by mere semi-protection, allowing a reasonable discussion on the relevant talk page. I therefore strongly suggest reduction to semi-protection, but indefinite until the apparently contentious question of wording ("illegal" vs. "undocumented") is solved. Concerning the contentious question of wording ("illegal" vs. "undocumented"), this article is the entirely wrong place for the argumentation; there is a clear statement about this in the relevant article (https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Illegal_immigration&oldid=798290297#Terminology). Therefore, that issue should be solved separately (whether that involves a request for third party opinion, an arbitration, or any other means, and whatever the outcome of that may be) but in such a way that the DACA article is not blocked from being edited for the mere reason of a dispute on the "illegal"/"undocumented" terminology, which is not even the center point of attention of this article. --Chris Howard (talk) 17:53, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Blocking edits to the article is ridiculous. The arguments over terminology occur on every page related to immigration. The only difference with this page is that there seems to be a particularly large number of IP accounts who repeatedly do the same terminology edits. Seems to me that the problem with this particular would be fixed by simply increasing the protection level. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:58, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans: please clarify: increasing from what to what? It is currently full-protected. As I see it, the problem with these terminology edits would be fixed by setting the protection level to, specifically, semi - and keeping it there for as long as necessary. Is that also what you mean? --Chris Howard (talk) 20:08, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, sorry. I'm not familiar with WP terminology. I was advocating for semi-protection, not a complete block on everyone. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:34, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

OK, thanks, that's clear now. --Chris Howard (talk) 22:21, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

• Samsura should review the WP:Close policy:
  • The Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_66#The_use_of_the_term_.22illegal_alien.22 was closed -- the consensus was clearly against the proposal and it was closed by an archive bot. A formal close is not necessary: Often, consensus is reached in the discussion and the outcome is obvious.
  • An editorial discussion such as this decidedly does not require an admin close Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, not just admins.
• I'm not endorsing VM's approach to this, I'm just not addressing it because such a discussion would be unlikely to be productive.

So let's thank Samsura for a) taking the time to be active on WP:RPP, and b) raising the issue here instead of continuing the escalation on the talk page, reduce the protection to semi, and hope Samsura and VM can figure out how to coexist with less drama.

• Oh, the root problem is there actually isn't any current WP:NPOV term for human beings in the US not in strict compliance with current immigration law as passed by the US Congress, who may or may not be subject to enforcement action based on the current administration policy. So let's not blame fellow Wikipedians for a mess that US politicians have made. NE Ent 20:14, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Update

I have followed an edit request to replace a single instance of "illegal student" with simply "student". I do not expect anybody making a serious case for "illegal student" being a helpful phrase or one used in relevant sources, i.e. the change should be uncontroversial. Samsara 21:40, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Broadening locus

Just received a complaint about removal of sourced info by Marek at DREAM Act, an article which should equally fall under WP:ARBAPDS. I've indicated this fact on the talk page. Samsara 00:22, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Removing information with sources is not prohibited by policy. Especially when a 'criticism' section of an article about an act that seeks to legitimise immigrant children is sourced almost entirely to an advocacy group who wants to reduce immigration. Please go read WP:RS and WP:UNDUE because at this point I am having serious doubts about your competency. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:32, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Competency at what? Noting the complaint or placing the notice? Samsara 00:52, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Competency about you being an administrator obviously. Possibly an editor too. If you honestly think that a single edit which removes sketchy content is worthy of fully-protecting-an-article/blocking-someone/running-to-the-admin-drama-board, then yeah, that raises questions about competency. Volunteer Marek  03:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

There are several issues here, Marek, one of which is your conduct on talk pages. I'm also not sure what "single edit" refers to, since on DREAM Act, you've already made seven. Samsara 04:13, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

The main issue is you making personal attacks, generally being rude and misusing (and possibly abusing) your admin tools. As pointed by several editors now - myself, Snooganssnoogans, Chris Howard, NE Ent, and Only in death. I think it's time for you to drop this and walk away. (The "single edit" refers to the one that the disruptive IP went to your page to admin-shop and complained about, and which you then happily obliged by bringing it up here. Let me ask again - why are you enabling disruptive IPs by always protecting their versions of the articles? Why are you restoring IP vandalism? That's just strange for an admin) Volunteer Marek  04:51, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

• I strongly agree that Volunteer Marek's behaviour on article talk pages is a serious issue. They take their battlefield behaviour everywhere they go. Note here on another article's talk page, where they describe everyone who disagrees with them in an RfC as not giving a shit Misplaced Pages policies and being NOTHERE: . At another point on the same page they accuse me of making blatant falsehoods by misrepresenting a cited discussion, then misrepresents that conversation, and accuses me of being ‘friends’ with one of the participants of that discussion from 4 years ago: . The whole talk page is littered with their accusations of dishonesty, such as here, where they tell James J. Lambden to stop being a 'lying pickle': . Their behaviour, including a complete refusal to compromise or come to a consensus, in the AP2 area has unquestionably made collaboration in this area extremely difficult. This battlefield attitude is so entrenched, I'd suggest an AP2 TBAN of some reasonable length (6 months?) as a minimum preventative measure.

So the opportunistic WP:BATTLEGROUND warriors with a grudge have finally showed up. Cjhard, you're not even active on that article. You're here only to attack others and try to leverage what is a spurious complaint by someone who might get boomerang into "advantage for my side" by suggesting baseless sanctions. You might wanna watch for WP:BOOMERANG. Volunteer Marek  04:51, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

New user creating inflammatory articles on mostly self invented terms

Democratic Backsliding. Some of these have already been deleted, like 2017 purges in the United States and Beta uprising. There's still a few created since then that need to go. Most importantly the user should be warned about using Misplaced Pages as a WP:SOAPBOX and the policies of WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH should be explained to them. And they need to stop. Volunteer Marek  23:32, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: Gotta notify folks when they're being discussed here. I'll leave a message with the editor regarding their conduct with article creation. You should feel free to report the behavior to the administrator's noticeboard for incidents should this crop up again. I JethroBT 00:38, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I deleted Alt-left–Alt-right conflict as an obvious self-coinage. This user appears to be trying to create terminology according to their own notions. I'll leave a message. Acroterion (talk) 01:15, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I had my concerns about this account when I first saw it. GAB 20:21, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Categorized user script that I am unable to correct

The page in question (User:123Steller/common.js (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)) is categorized into several article categories (eg. Category:Austria-Hungary).

Is there a better place to report these types pages?

Could a bot be tasked with removing article categories automatically or perhaps user scripts could be banned from being categorized outside of Category:Misplaced Pages scripts? Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/) 03:33, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

It appears 123Steller has copied the entire content of the Austria-Hungary article into their .js page for some unknown reason (perhaps they thought it was a sandbox). I'll drop a line on their talk page to ask them to remove it. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:53, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I've deleted that page. — xaosflux 22:41, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Magioladitis 2 closed

An arbitration case regarding Magioladitis has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. Magioladitis (talk · contribs) is indefinitely prohibited from making any edit which only introduces a cosmetic change (that is, where there is no substantive change made in the same edit). However, Magioladitis may make (without a substantive change in the same edit) or bundle (for example, as part of "general fixes") cosmetic changes from his bot account if the bot request for approval specifically allows this. This sanction supersedes remedy 7.1 of the original case.
2. Magioladitis is indefinitely prohibited from initiating or participating in any discussion concerning WP:COSMETICBOT, including discussions concerning its impact. Magioladitis may ask specific questions, at the bot noticeboard or bot request for approval, to clarify whether bot tasks he wishes to undertake, or is currently undertaking, are permitted under remedy 1.1 of this case. Once a question has been answered, and discussion closed, by an uninvolved BAG member or administrator, Magioladitis is not permitted to raise the same question again, except in a clarification request if required. This sanction supersedes the community sanction applied in June 2017.
3. Magioladitis is indefinitely prohibited from using AWB, or similar tool (such as WPCleaner), on the English Misplaced Pages. This prohibition does not apply to bots operated by Magioladitis undertaking approved tasks. For clarity, he may discuss AWB and similar tools (notwithstanding his other sanctions), but may not make edits using them (or a derivative) on the English Misplaced Pages. This sanction supersedes the community sanction applied in July 2017.
4. Magioladitis is reminded that accounts making automated edits (bots) must be approved by the bot approvals group before being used. He is indefinitely prohibited from making automated edits from his main (User:Magioladitis) account.
5. For consistent poor judgement and failure to follow Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines, Magioladitis is desysopped. He may regain the tools at any time through a successful request for adminship.

For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 21:26, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Magioladitis 2 closed

Schorlomite redirection issue

When on the Garnet page (https://en.wikipedia.org/Garnet) and going down to "Garnet structural group" you will see near the bottom of the second table a blue link for Schorlomite. However when this link is clicked you are forcefully redirected to https://en.wikipedia.org/Garnet#Less_common_species with no way of staying on the Schorlomite page. This would generally not be an issue if the Schorlomite page was empty or had no valuable information, however for the split second that the page shows up before redirecting to the Garnet page you can clearly see it is full of information that due to the forced redirect is impossible to see or obtain. I apologize if there is a better talk page or way to discuss this issue, I'm still learning the ropes of wikipedia and this seemed to be the most suitable way to get in contact with someone who might be able to remedy the issue.

VivianN Z (talk) 00:49, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

There is no history or info at Schorlomite just the redirect code. You are seeing the target page pull up before it takes you to the target section. Legacypac (talk) 00:59, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Administrative backlog