Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SW3 5DL (talk | contribs) at 19:04, 12 November 2010 (→New proposal: cmt). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• 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

A section "issues" in the article "Israel Police"

So before creating it, like in other corresponding articles that are related to other countries, I would like to .. I don't know, make sure or maybe give a warn to admins. Because what I'm about to add might be not likable for someones, hence, these someones would try to get rid of this section or simply put spokes in my wheel which will make it impossible for me to add information in this section. Of course we're talking about information which are provided by marginally reliable sources. So can we now, right ahead, make sure that it's possible to create such section there, no matter if it stays empty for some years or gets filled at glance, the fact that it can be created shouldn't be doubtful, right? Clear question, clear answer. Userpd (talk) 17:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

This is better discussed at the article's talk page. Its inclusion depends on consensus, not the views of one admin. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Consensus is needed if someone disputes something about a content, but the creation of section "Issues" in that article is non-disputable (WP:DISRUPTPOINT), just like a section "biography" in articles about celebrities. Userpd (talk) 16:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Er, it's obviously disputable. So, take it back to the talk page. — The Hand That Feeds You: 20:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Why is it disputable? No, we're already discussing it here. Let the admins see impudent faces of those who dare to call such a solid, indisputable and seemingly pretty normal case - "disputable". Have you the cheek to say so of this case. The section issues in articles regarding law enforcement can be, as it's an inherent part of it, one can't simply dismiss it because he doesn't like it. Userpd (talk) 00:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Again, I'm perfectly aware that an information which might be disputable, should be discussed at talkpage, but here I just wanted to make sure, that the creation of the section "issues" would be possible in the future and to ascertain its possibility to be there, both theoretically and practically. That's it, there's nothing planning yet, just to make sure such an obvious case, because like I said, I have a feeling someone may impede the creation of this section per se. So if we acknowledge beforehand, that this section can be and no one has a right to simply take it down because of his personal ambitions, that would be good and would help to avoid this nuisance in the future. Userpd (talk) 00:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Speaking as a non-admin, the inclusion of any section is disputable. No one can, in advance, determine that a whole section could be included. And even if we agreed right here right now that it was okay, it can still change in the future (see WP:Consensus can change). For right now, only the talk page of the article can help answer your question. Questions may come up in the future about sources, or information about living people, or being neutral, or whatever, and there are boards you can take it to; further, there are things you can do if a dispute erupts that doesn't seem to be solvable just through the article's talk page alone. But admins don't adjudicate what content can and cannot be in an article, except when the content directly contradicts policy (like putting unsourced negative info in a biography of a living person). In any event, there's not much value in discussing whether some theoretical, nebulous section could be added to an article--instead, propose an actual addition (since you're talking about a controversial page, it's probably best to propose on talk before just editing, although you do always have the option of being bold). As always, the devil is in the details.Qwyrxian (talk) 03:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't make a big deal out of nothing. What you want to say, is that if some people vote for no inclusion of this section, thus no consensus, it simply couldn't be there? That's just ridiculous, how people may abuse wikipedia for their own sake. Userpd (talk) 14:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Plus we're talking about the Israeli-Palestinian topic area, which is filled with partisans who will object to anything that slights their preferred point-of-view. Tarc (talk) 14:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's why I wanted to make it clear in advance. We're just talking about the creation of the section, not about its content or what we're going to add in it, just the creation, why should be it impossible? Like I said, the section "issues" isn't just some non-related thing, and such section presence in other "Law enforcement" articles. Userpd (talk) 16:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I edit in the I-P topic area fairly often and I'm familiar with the problems. Qwyrxian's answer is sensible in my view. Whether a section can or should be created depends on its content which in turn has to comply with policy. There's no point just talking about a section in principal. The existence of a section with the same name in other "Law enforcement" articles isn't relevant because it has nothing to do with content policies. You would need to make the case for inclusion in Israel Police article (or a bold edit) based on content policies (i.e. WP:NPOV and WP:V) and actual reliably sourced content. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Qwyrxian explained it perfectly. And WP:CONSENSUS doesn't mean "unanimous." Discuss the section on the article's talk page and see if you can reach an agreement there. — The Hand That Feeds You: 18:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

And now you're revealing yourself (I'm talking about you, Sean.hoyland and Qwyrxian), I repeated throughout my all messages, that we're not talking about the content we're going to add in it, just to ensure a possibility, and now you've found a way to make even this an "issue", the above links weren't needed and were posted as a provocative action, to discredit me in front of admins, "look, he doesn't know the rules", when in fact you just misunderstood what this was all about, and I warned in the beginning, I'm perfectly aware of the rules. But saying that the possibility of the creation of section issues is disputable - is just ridiculous. Yes, content of this section might be, but the section itself... n/c, well played. Userpd (talk) 00:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

hmmm puzzling response. You seem to misunderstand. This isn't a game. I have zero interest in you personally or how you look in front of admins or what you think about me or anyone else. You asked a question. You got an answer. It was intended to help you. If you aren't talking about the content of the section then you aren't talking about something meaningful policywise. You could have asked whether it is possible in principle to create a section about the size distribution of their shoes or their views on whether they are actively facilitating non-compliance with Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention in territories held under belligerent occupation and/or protecting a land promised to them by an undetected superbeing. You would have got the same answer. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

But I shouldn't be getting "the same answer", because obviously, there's a difference between the content of the section and the section itself. And it should raise questions if people like you, beforehand, being warned still continue repeating the same, which isn't up to the topic's theme. And your answer isn't helpful, because I already said I know these rules that you posted above in other words I read them long before. And knowing this, why did you post them? Or mentioned? I appreciate someone's help, but not in this way. Didn't I make it clear I know them or that we're not discussing here about disputable contents? I refuse to accept that a section titled "issues" is disputable in articles where it belongs to. Userpd (talk) 05:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

To make it clearer, once again, disregarding whether the content of the section "issues" might be or might not be verifiable / reliable, can the section itself take place in the article "Israel Police". This supposed to be a simple question with a simple, definite answer. Or rephrased like this "can we write about issues within the israeli police in an accordance to WP rules?" Userpd (talk) 05:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Can we write about issues within the israeli police in an accordance to WP rules ? Of course, especially if the sources used are doing exactly that, describing issues within the Israeli police from a meta level rather than reporting specific instances of some kind of perceived issue. If the section is just a synthesis of individual media reports about specific issues or if it simply lists specific instances it probably won't survive. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:32, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe everything, which is backed up by reliable sources or proven, related to this section can be written in it / mentioned, some people come here to gather information about what they want. Of course, poorly written / sourced material (or someones' blogs to push their opinions upon readers) should be undoubtedly deleted, but in wikipedia in this case, primarily attention is paid to source's reliability. If you find the information to be inappropriate, then I can't help you. And of course, it must be written in accordance to WP:NPOV. If you find the section lacks other related information, then fulfill it with "it". You can't command people what they should write / add in wikipedia if it's no in violation of WP rules, WP isn't censored. Userpd (talk) 06:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately that isn't how things work in practice in that topic area but I wish you luck. Things that you might find useful just in case you don't know about them are WP:IPCOLL, Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Current Article Issues, the discretionary sanctions and ongoing discussions regarding implementing further restrictions on editors and articles, see Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Arbitration Enforcement/Israel-Palestine articles. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I suppose this WP:IPCOLL doesn't make an aim of "getting rid of unfavorable information from any israeli-related articles"? If no, then I fail to see why you're bringing up your concern to me, because dude, I can find you a lot of information given on wikipedia, which amusingly, quite a lot of people would prefer to be deleted. Userpd (talk) 08:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/StartrekismylifeJadzia

Supposedly the "consensus" for this MfD was to keep the page, according to the closing admin, but another just deleted the page two days right after it was closed. And another decided to delete the corresponding talkpage for the MfD even though it existed. Should the page be undeleted then, if this was the outcome of the MfD? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 21:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The talk page contained nothing pertinent and there's no need for an RfA page to exist if it's never going to be transcluded. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I think I should have been notified of this discussion since I'm involved... See User talk:Fastily#Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/StartrekismylifeJadzia and User talk:Eagles247#Request for Admin ship, RE:. Untranscluded RfAs are not typically kept on Misplaced Pages. Also, after talking with the candidate about it after I deleted the RfA, they agreed that they were not ready to run at this time. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

New information became available after the MfD closed, namely, that the user is not planning to run for adminship anytime soon. As such, the MfD result really no longer applies and deletion is okay. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Deleting the MfD talkpage was my error. An editor had put a G1 speedy on it (which was clearly wrong), but I took a look and thought it was the talkpage for the deleted RfA, not the MfD itself. As such, I've restored it FWIW (without the speedy tag) and would have probably done it a lot quicker if I'd been notified of this ... Black Kite (t) (c) 00:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry everyone. It was my fault that I did not notify the participants involved immediately; I had thought it rather trivial and was on a time constraint. Please forgive me. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 02:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

No problem, the involved parties found the section. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

MFD closer here. The MFD comments were strongly against deletion on the basis that even a zero-chance nominee has the right to put themselves forward, so I closed accordingly. But given the user's subsequent comments about not wanting to run right now, I agree that the conclusions of the MFD are moot. --RL0919 (talk) 03:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Question: Should future RfA's be deleted?

Perhaps this is a good place to start a formal consensus for whether RfA's like this can be deleted. This is not a one-time situation, it happens nearly every week. There is no harm in keeping such RfA's, except that the tally count might reach a maximum at some point and no longer be able to function for the live RfA's. Currently various administrators have been cleaning it out every now and then, usually with either a G2 ("Test page") summary or a G6 ("Housekeeping"). I assumed that everything was okay with these deletions until I found out about the MFD in which it seems that Wikipedians in general are in favor of keeping the RfA's. Does this mean we should no longer delete unused RfA's? Should I bring this to the Village Pump or an RfC to get a wider assortment of views? —Soap— 12:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This refers specifically and strictly to RfA's that have been created and left untranscluded for a long time. —Soap— 13:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose The only time an RFA should be deleted would be if someone had created it on behalf of someone, and they decline the nomination. Otherwise, past RFA's are useful documents: I can look at what suggestions were made, and then see if they actually followed those suggestions. Even if the editor claims to never want to run again, that does not mean that they will not run again. Courtesy blanking may be appropriate in some cases, but never deletion. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
  • But if the RFA was never transcluded, there wouldn't be any commentary on there worth seeing... Courcelles 12:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

If there was even a single comment (support, oppose, neutral) then it becomes a live RFA for all intents and purposes. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, in that case it should be logged as a failed attempt. However, this is useless for those purposes, and shouldn't prejudice a candidate's first real RFA as being #2. Because, whether we like it or not, we all know RFA's have a greater chance of failure the higher the number at the end of them. Courcelles 12:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I concur fully regarding this specific RFA. But the question relates to RFA's in general. I have never questionned this specific one. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

This is not the first time, nor the last, that this specific instance has/will occur. I have deleted several RfAs of new users recently (none that went to MfD and closed as keep, however) after seven days had passed since I notified them of their untranscluded RfAs. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose There's no compelling reason to delete - leaving the pages in tact does no harm. Moreover, if user A nominates user B but user B doesn't want to run, leaving the page visible will stop users C, D and E from also nominating user B for adminship in the near future - so the page would still serve a useful purpose, even if it's never trancluded. waggers (talk) 13:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• Userfy. There are several sets of circumstances at play here. The key point is that an RFA is not an RFA unless the candidate transcludes it to WP:RFA. Until then, it is a draft - and, my preference, it should be prepared in the userspace. Move it over when you're ready, transclude it, and brace yourself. Unless the RFA is going to be transcluded shortly (say within a day or two), then it should not be in the WP space. Even better, we should turn the practice around for draft RFAs, especially ones where the candidate changes their mind, but might re-apply down the line. Userfy it. They can work on it at their leisure, updating their self-nom or discussing a nomination with their admin coach/mentor/etc. Seems like that would be the simplest option. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 15:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete or Userfy An Rfa is not an Rfa until a user transcludes it. -DJSasso (talk) 15:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• Comment/Delete - This discussion is based on the process I (with the idea coming from Fastily) have been using for these. I notify the user about their untranscluded RfA (with User:Fastily/RfA Notice), and if they are a new user I warn them about their chances of succeeding, and after seven days have passed without the user replying to the message, I delete the RfA. In the case of Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Kobnach, is there really any point in keeping a declined RfA nomination? Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• Userfy - might come in handy someday. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete/Userfy if nominee refused, Keep if nominee still considering. -- Avi (talk) 21:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• No. absolutely not. No compelling reason to delete. RfAs can and should be blanked liberally (but never automatically) and only very rarely deleted. Protonk (talk) 04:12, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

There is definitely some misunderstanding in this thread. The purpose of this discussion is to weigh in on whether untranscluded RfAs of new users should be deleted after seven days have passed since notifying them of their RfAs and their chances at succeeding. This does not include transcluded RfAs that did not succeed, as these should be unequivocally kept. In cases of users declining nominations, is there really any purpose of keeping these RfAs if only to show a higher number of past RfAs for a user when they officially decide to run? Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• Delete -FASTILY 23:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete, in those cases where the RfA is as content-empty as in StartrekismylifeJadzia's case. (Wow. This person may never make another edit, yet has managed to carve out at least a footnote-level notability in Misplaced Pages's history thru this one event.) However, if it can be shown that deleting these unfinished RfAs -- & that is what they are, unfinished & undiscussed -- either has no effect on the server load, or perhaps even increases it, I'm willing to not bother tidying up by deleting them. "Tidying up" describes exactly what is being proposed here, the equivalent of straightening the desks or emptying waste paper baskets; since Misplaced Pages is Not Paper, we don't need to concern ourselves with treating stuff like this like waste paper, spoiled drafts, etc. -- llywrch (talk) 22:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Invitation to participation!

Hello!

As you may be aware, the Wikimedia Foundation is gearing up for our annual fundraiser. We want to hit our goal and hit it as soon as possible, so that we can focus on Misplaced Pages's tenth anniversary on January 15 and our new project: Contributions. I'm posting across the noticeboards to engage you, the community, to work to build Misplaced Pages by finance but also by content. We seek donations not only financially, but by collaboration in building content. You can find more information in Philippe Beaudette's memo to the communities here.

Visit the Contribution project page and the Fundraising page to find out how you can help us support and spread free knowledge. ⇒DanRosenthal 21:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

As a side request, can we please keep this post from being archived for a few days? Thanks. ⇒DanRosenthal 21:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I have tweeked your Original Post's Time Stamp, So it wont be archived till the Nov 12th at the earliest The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to second this appeal. The community has had a huge opportunity to participate in the fundraiser this year, including choosing banner text, proposing banner text, and being able to work with social media outreach, and now we're looking for graphic banner designs as well as appeals from ... you. Check out Fundraising 2010 HQ and please don't complain about the horrible banners if you didn't make suggestions. Cheers, /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Sanctions on Tea Party movement

• Tea Party movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Alright, I've just placed the 6th full protection for this article. No one is outright violating 3RR, and blocks haven't been successful. I see no other alternative but asking ArbCom to intervene (an unnecessary lengthy and exhausting process) or placing our own probation. As such, I propose general sanctions. As a background, the article has had significant trouble with IP-hopping edit warriors as well. I ask for community input, and administrator to close the discussion. I'm going to propose two different alternatives; other editors can propose other alternatives of course.

Tea Party movement is placed on probation (option 1) :

1. Having new editors and IP editors who make contentious reverts and hop IPs/usernames on the article is disruptive. As such, the article is placed on indefinite semi-protection until such time as the community agrees it is no longer necessary. Editors who are not autoconfirmed may request changes on the talk page via the {{editprotected}} template.
2. No editor may make more than two (2) reverts in a seven (7) day period.

Tea Party movement is placed on probation (option 2) :

1. Having new editors and IP editors who make contentious reverts and hop IPs/usernames on the article is disruptive. As such, any new editor with few to no edits elsewhere or IP editor is limited to one revert per week. Administrators are encouraged to use semi-protection should sockpuppetry become an issue.
2. No longstanding editor may make more than two (2) reverts in a seven (7) day period, excluding new/IP editors (explained above).

While the above exception for new/IP editors may be contentious, please understand that the role of drive-by edit warriors with little to no knowledge of Wiki procedures is causing a lot of headaches (not to mention the sockpuppetry and goading- e.g., this type of edit summary which an editor from the 99.0.0.0/8 range has been using).

Thoughts? Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't know about the IP's as much as the problem we're having right now with one editor who keeps reverting against consensus. He's been uncivil to editors, with a very confrontational tone, he's taken up over a week of our time on this without providing any legitimate reliable sources to back up his claims. This morning we agreed to go to the Mediation Cabal, and he's being disruptive over there. Now the TPM page is locked because he won't stop reverting. Seems to me the sanctions might best start with him.Malke 2010 (talk) 05:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, Magog, what do you mean about the sock puppets? How do you know that?Malke 2010 (talk) 05:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I haven't noticed any username sockpuppetry, but I have noticed quite a bit of IPs jumping in and out, including at least the one on the 99/8 range I mentioned above who is clearly editing as such to avoid scrutiny. Also, while Dylan Flaherty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has certainly been a problem, I also see other edit warring on the page, e.g., Digiphi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Cptnono (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Really? Show me one instance of me edit warring on the page?Cptnono (talk) 05:41, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

& . It wasn't particularly malicious, granted, and I wasn't trying to lay blame on you (sorry if it came across that way): I was just showing that the reverting was going on with everyone, from what I could see, and it wasn't just a Dylan Flaherty issue. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:14, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't malicious at all and the discussion (we actually both immediately went to talk) showed that information was not correct as the previous consensus showed. Most of my activity on the page is on the talk page by a significant ratio. I don't care what actions are taken on the page as long as I am not lumped in with those edit warring. There is tons of edit warring so feel free to get arbitration on it or lock it down as far as I am concerned.Cptnono (talk) 06:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

You're right, that was just flatly incorrect. Apologies. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Magog, while I don't oppose the current protection (and wouldn't even if it had locked "grassroots" into the lead), semi-protection would deal with the IP's, and the "grassroots" issue that is behind the current page churn is currently under mediation. Putting aside Malke's despicable attempt to throw me under the bus, I think there's a light at the end of this tunnel. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 05:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi guys. To clarify, what Malke is describing is that the proposal to remove the grassroots-lead bit diff is as-of-today in mediation. It was BRD to remove-diff days ago, with attempts to maintain it until a consensus otherwise like 1, 2, 3. -Digiphi (Talk) 08:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

If one looks at what is going on over there I think that this is overkill. I think that the scope of the current edit warring is two editors over one word. North8000 (talk) 11:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, agree. There are other edits to made that don't involve the grassroots issue. This page has been relatively stable compared to other high traffic articles. The usual IP vandalism is there, but even right before the lockup, the page wasn't even semi-protected. I think Magog has a good idea whose time has not quite come yet. If you look at the talk page history, consensus usually gets reached there. Occasionally having an admin weigh in is nice. But nobody seems to want to hang out there consistently. I could see this two week lock if this were the Murder of Meredith Kercher which had terrible problems, but even that page which had two admins sitting on it didn't get ArbCom sanctions. I suggest letting the editors work this out. Problems come and go over there. I suggested mediation cabal for a problem we're having. We should let that process go forward and free up the page for everybody else.Malke 2010 (talk) 16:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the semi (not following the article), but I think that non-standard revert restrictions like 1/week and 2/week are a bad idea. It's too easy to violate them accidentally, and, with a lot of intervening edits, it's often hard to figure out if something is a revert or a new edit, both for the editor and for potential enforcement. If you sanction editors for accidental behavior, you will (justifiably) piss them off. If you don't, then every edit warrior will try to wikilaywer hir way out of a violation. If 3RR is not enough, go to 1RR. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I had addressed the lock elsewhere, and didn't repeat it here, but it appears to be a topic here as well. Here were my thoughts:

"Hello Magog the Ogre. I noticed that you put a 2 week lock on the Tea Party Movement Article. You indicated this was for an edit war....the edit war the is pretty narrow....two people over one word, with several more (myself included) engaged in a general discussion on it, and now requesting and getting mediation. I don't know what could be called the "current" or "changed" version, but as it turned out you locked it a few minutes after the contested item was changed away from what it has been for the last couple weeks. But my main point is that this is a huge article badly in need of work and updating....it was receiving about 15-20 edits a day unrelated to this dispute. It seems a shame to shut all of that work down for two weeks over such a narrow dispute. What do you think about shortening or reducing the lock?" North8000 (talk) 11:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

North8000 (talk) 17:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The problem at this point is that there has been edit warring on other subjects in the past, and I still don't have assurance from Dylan Flaherty that he wouldn't remove the term until mediation comes to a close. While I understand your frustration, guys, it looks like this is larger than just the one issue. Although I am at the point of putting it on long term semi-protection instead, seeing the lack of resistance here. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:03, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

New proposal

Alright, I have a new proposal, based on the feedback I've received:

Tea Party movement is placed on informal probation:

1. The article is semi-protected indefinitely to avoid edit warring by drive by editors, to be removed by an administrator only on a trial basis or when it becomes clear that disruptive edit warring by IPs is no longer an issue.
2. No longstanding editor may make more than one (1) revert on the same content per twenty-four (24) hour period, excluding blatant vandalism only. More leniency will be given to editors who act in the spirit of WP:BRD or who remove uncontroversially untrue statements. The three revert-rule still applies to the article at large.
3. The above clause is not a license to revert exactly one time per day, every day. Editors who push a slow-moving revert war to the same item will be subject to blocking by an uninvolved administrator, after a warning.
4. A message of the sanctions will be placed on the edit notice page so no newcoming editor can miss it. Nevertheless, editors are encouraged to gently warn newcomers to the article of the sanctions should s/he place a revert. Unwarned long-time editors who slightly err in the 1RR clause without warning may be granted leniency,
5. Violations can be reported at WP:ANI or at the talk page of a knowledgeable uninvolved administrator.

To clarify a few points above:

• It's not expected this article will be on probation or semi-protected forever. But it certainly could be a long time; hopefully only months, perhaps a year or more, depending on how things evolve.
• The "same content" clause in (2) is to avoid blocking over common sense reverting two separate parts of the text or over good faith applications of WP:BRD. It is my belief that if an editor can only change one part of the text, it will vastly cut down on the edit warring.
• If there are common sense reverts (e.g., Cptnono's above, where a demonstrably false statement was added), editors are encouraged to ask on the talk page unless they are absolutely sure the added information is wrong, lest they find themselves blocked.

Thoughts? Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

This seems to be a bit more flexible than the previous proposal. My only concern is that, for the duration of the mediation on "grassroots", we avoid edit-warring over it. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to personally enforce a block if an editor removes or adds it according to consensus after the protection is removed - I don't think that's fair to other editors, and it would be an improper endiorsement of the m:the wrong version whereas I'm more interested in general consensus. I will enforce a block if I see the same editor adding or removing the above several times. Yes, I have protected the page, but I did so decidedly neutrally as to the content itself. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

While I have my preferences about which version should be there, I'm not demanding that it be chosen as the "right version". The fact is that we are currently in dispute over what the consensus is, and this has led to edit wars in the past. If removing protection starts these up again, you'll be forced to slap protection back on it, or worse, and we'll be back where we started.

What I'm suggesting that that, whatever version is selected, we enforce a 0RR policy on it until mediation ends. Nobody will touch it if it's electrocuted. :-) Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Would you be amenable to readding the grassroots clause and enforcing a 0RR policy on this clause only until there is consensus (i.e., it will remain up... removal by a new editor could be undone without repercussion)? I realize this may cause existing editors to be more lax in their negotiations, but it does seem that there are more editors who think it should be added right now than think it should be removed. Additionally, this will allow quicker unprotection. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Or, better yet, I readd the text, unprotect the article, and you agree not to remove it during the article's probation; then we don't have to worry about making a separate provision for it. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, of course I would object to anyone adding "grassroots", because it violates WP:NPOV and is not supported by our WP:RS's. The problem is that requiring only me to leave it alone, besides being rather obviously unfair, would only cause trouble.

For one thing, if you look at the mediation page, I think you'll find that it's not safe to say that there are more editors in favor of inclusion. And, with my hands tied, there would now be an open niche to fill by those who pop up out of the woodwork to remove the offending term. Semi-protection will stop casual IP's, but more determined ones will simply register. This will lead to retaliation, and more warring.

If the article is unprotected, then no matter whether the contested term is included or not, there has to be a global ban on either removing or restoring it. Without this, mediation would become something of a face, as the state of article would be a fait accompli. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Then I'm afraid, if we agree to the above conditions, then we will have to leave the grassroots section alone as part of the general sanctions, and it would be subject to the same as the rest. If any one editor reverts it multiple times, no matter the situation, this editor will receive a warning and eventually be blocked. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's simply a recipe for a tag-team edit war. I'd rather just leave it protected until mediation ends. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

At the risk of upping the ante, I'm giving consideration to restoring the article to a predispute version during protection (which is acceptable for an administrator per WP:PP), thus readding the text. I'm afraid you wouldn't still like the article protected this situation, which shows poorly upon your objectivity in drawing up a process to compromise. Just as I just said to Malke on the talk page of TPM, this may say that you are part of the problem, not the solution. I may have to give an outright 0RR sanction against editors who are part of the problem instead of the solution. Do other non-involved editors have no opinion on this? Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Magog, you are certainly within your rights as an administrator to do this. Having said that, I cannot pretend to think it is a good idea. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:32, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Magog I'm for the proposal at the top this "New Proposal" section and I'll put my name to the tweaks you've suggested between it and this comment. I like this page being a contract that we can point too for as long as it goes on. And Dylan he's giving us a way out, and also a way to save face, kind of. We should take it. I'll bet the others will post that they like the proposal too. -Digiphi (Talk) 02:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me Magog. Two things. 1) My mentors are not fans of me commenting on AN threads, which is why I used the TPM talk page since you'd posted there as well. 2) Your comment to me on the TPM talk page about editors being the problem was not about me being a problem. I was not negotiating to get me a better deal on grassroots. I was seeking clarity about editing different sections because I did not understand what you'd said about it vis-a-vis your 1RR thing. It was not about the word grassroots. So it isn't "As I've just said to Malke. . ." My question was different. Entirely different. A very general question and different. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 02:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the version until settled, I think it's more important to bring the mediation subject to a conclusion. And who knows which version has dibs on being called the original version. But it should be noted that, with respect to the disputed portion, the version that has been there a couple of weeks and during the mediation was removed minutes before the block.

Your plan sounds like a good one to me. North8000 (talk) 03:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey Malke I'm going say this because you and I are obviously in the same camp in this thing and it's become clear we get along pretty well. 1.)Maybe just let it go about the little thing on the now-archived page, because we're really close to getting the page unprotected. In the big picture we're going to get richer just by playing ball than suing for the tiny maybe libel. 2.) Let's not pussyfoot around this. There's obviously a chance Magog might come around to seeing our shared position about BRD in the course of un-protecting, and that would be a pretty nice bonus. Or he may not and it might get stuck up there, and that's just the way it goes. Things aren't always perfect but they don't have to be shitty. Know what I mean? Let's get this thing un-protectedd -Digiphi (Talk) 03:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, good proposal, etc. Hey there Digiphi, I knew you were here, your cat called me. I just wanted to clarify what can and cannot be done on the page so we all don't fall into the sinkhole. Malke 2010 (talk) 03:30, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

So are we good now?Malke 2010 (talk) 05:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely, if that was a question for me. -Digiphi (Talk) 08:30, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer waiting just a bit to get some more community input. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Given the expectation that the edit war will continue and mediation will be undermined, I recommend against unprotecting at this time, at least without global sanctions against modifying the disputed term. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 03:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I think we're talking about what happens before conclusion of the mediation; after that I think we're assuming sticking with the result for a long time. The passage in question got locked minutes after you switched it to your preferred state. Would your thought be the same regardless of which version is there during the mediation process? North8000 (talk) 14:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I do understand that, but my point remains: so long as it's locked down, it's in limbo, but once it's tag-team edit-warred over, the mediation effort will become a joke. In general, when it comes to inclusion of disputed material, we should default against it. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

(added later) Going from memory, the "grassroots" version had been in for about 2 weeks before the block, and then was removed minutes before the block. Not sure what this should or shouldn't mean. North8000 (talk) 13:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Magog, I understand you'd like more input but you could just unlock the page with semi-protection, add back the text with the caveat that it remain until the mediation is settled since it's got consensus, and then stay with the page and if an edit war develops send the offenders to the gallows.Malke 2010 (talk) 15:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Or the gallows. -Digiphi (Talk) 17:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Magog, after/if you settle the question of what version is in there during the mediation process, I'll be we could get all of the involved editors to leave it until the completion of the mediation process. After that, I think it would be very very hard to argue for or put in anything contrary to the result of the mediation.North8000 (talk) 14:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Does no one uninvolved in this dispute have any opinion on this? Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I think your proposed solutions are too lax and will result in gaming and tag-team edit-warring, as they are on article with similar editing restrictions. I propose that the article be put under a revert restriction that would basically codify BRD.

Any editor is allowed to blodly insert or edit material in the article. If the material is contested, any editor is allowed to revert that material once and discussion of the revert must take place on the talk page. No other edits related to the original edit are allowed until the discussion is complete. Violation of the revert restriction will be enforced by blocks starting at 24 hours and of increasing duration for repeat offences. Reverts of blatent vandalism and BLP violations are exempt from this restriction.

Use of semi would be consistent with policy. Also noting that claims of vandalism and BLP vios are not the same as actual vandalism and BLP vios. I'm not sure if this has been tried before, but I think in this case it would stop the reverts and force discussion to the talk page. -Atmoz (talk) 17:19, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Atmoz, we did go to the talk page and discuss and the consensus was to include it. So BRD was followed. Grassroots was put in with reliable sources, reverted, discussion opened up, consensus shown, edit returned.Malke 2010 (talk) 19:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I really like it. Be prepared for the usual bickering over uncontroversial, but I think you were expecting that. 3RR/article but 1RR/content is a common sense rule that is probably not too complex for the KISS principle. It will be worth checking the displayed edit notice to make sure that IP editors trying to contribute through the semi-protection are prominently directed to the talkpage (it will still be in the general notice, but it might get visually swamped). I think that at the talk page of a knowledgeable uninvolved administrator should be removed, though; it sounds good in abstract, but invites over-involvement and adminshopping. An alternative might be to encourage that simple violations be reported in a new section at the talkpage, while more involved issues are kicked up to AN/I using {{sanction appeal}} or similar. It might also be worth adding some language to the effect that Editor A makes an edit → Editor B reverts → Editor C rereverts → Editor D rerereverts → Editor E rererereverts → ... is an edit war and will be treated as such. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Unprotect to any version of "new proposal" please. Came from the mediation page, with slight COI as an editor for WorldNetDaily, and also as being involved with Dylan Flaherty in a different mediation. Magog, I think there is a clear consensus on this page that unprotection should lift asap, and I think the stalling is due to a single party. This being the case, I believe that warring per se will not continue among the established editors due to the single party's knowledge of the excessive force against him, and the ongoing mediation. I believe that any potential warring by new or SPAs will be curbed by the present proposal, especially if you include that 1RR per week for SPAs rule that you mentioned above. If my beliefs are wrong, well, that's an outcome of AGF. (I would also disagree with 2over0, the edit war doesn't start until rationales disappear or same-editor repetition begins.) This should not be a paralysis of analysis issue, and I would be disappointed to find that any party continued to tie up important articles with such stall tactics. JJB 18:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Need to find a wikiproject to review articles

Clearly this guy has an interest in some topic, but I'm unable to determine what the topic is. The articles he is creating don't have valid intros or descriptions, so it's almost impossible to tell what the topic is. I'd really like someone from a valid WikiProject to take a look at all this work to see what can/should be done. But I cannot determine the WikiProject where I should post the comment. Can someone help? — Timneu22 · talk 16:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The linguistics people would seem to be who you're looking for; SemEval probably stands for Semantic Evaluations. I'm tempted to tag SemEval for G11 as it stands now, though; I won't, but someone should take a look at it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

OK. I added a note to that page. Hope that's right. Thanks — Timneu22 · talk 17:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

It's definitely not A1, as you tagged it. Have you tried to discuss this with the user? Or notified them of this discussion? -Atmoz (talk) 17:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Could you identify the context of that article? — Timneu22 · talk 17:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I could barely figure out what the hell it was; although that's an unusual use of A1, I think it was a reasonable application of it, given that the article doesn't have any (I only figured it out after running a Google search, and I'm still only guessing; I could be wrong). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Considering the first line has a link to the conference, A1 is clearly inappropriate. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The article still reads like an advertisement, though; I'll let someone else judge that. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT. This is a new user trying to write their first article on a topic they are obviously familiar with. It may or may not meet Misplaced Pages's notability standards, but new users are not required to know all the rules. In fact, they are encouraged to be bold and this user was when creating this article. The proper response is not to summarily delete their work, but to work with them to try to improve the article, or communicate with them and explain why their article may not be appropriate for Misplaced Pages. So please, stop biting the newcomers. -Atmoz (talk) 18:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

If i may speak, SemEval is a series of conferences discussing on an issue in Natural Language Processing. The reason why you cannot find the details online is because the google engine pagerank gave you the relevant sites but there is no 1 website that will explain to you what the whole idea of SemEval is about. There are 5 workshops held and each workshops have sub-workshops, that they call them tasks. and therefore when you search on google, only bits and pieces of the sub-workshops are reflected. The wiki page was a first step to gather all these bits and pieces into 1 site and it is only a first step. please help to improve this wikipage by giving us suggestions on how to make the wikipage more wikiable to the readers. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alvations (talk • contribs) 19:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Please pardon the creation of the multiple page, because it is an attempt to simplify the page after reading the comments on http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:SemEval#why_wikify so i thought of porting out the different sections might be a way to wikify the page. But that's how open source stuff are, one puts up and the rest improve. thank you for your tolerance.Alvations (talk) 19:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

As I have a life outside Misplaced Pages, I made that comment knowing I would have to leave for a while, and I was trying to draw someone's attention to it. Since I won't have the amount of time necessary for at least several hours, and I'm now attempting to deal with another unrelated matter, I wanted to make sure someone would notice it. Honestly, if I was new and I saw my own comments, I'd be more interested in rectifying the problem than anything else, which seems to be the case with this user, so don't worry so much about hurt feelings. The work still needs to be done; I'm more than happy to put in the time, but I'm not sure if/when I'll have the time to sit down and do it. Just relax, OK? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Side not we are on our Second SPA, popping up The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 14:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Third SPA The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 14:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Fourth The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 15:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Fifth. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

{{notavote}} has failed us here's number six The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Three year old spammer account has popped up in support. Definite off Wiki-Canvassing going on. Two of the IPs have been from different continents so socking doesnt seem likely. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Please take a look at i've edited, template i've created and stuff i'm interested in. Being a linguist and a geek, i confess that my inclination to computational linguistics is beyond most people. and in fact the semeval page is part of a school project. That explains the constant and much effort put into it. I've sounded my piece, it's up to the general public of wikipedia to decide on my past, present and future contributions to the global pool of knowledge.Alvations (talk) 13:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

It's amazing what a google search brings up. MER-C 04:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup help

I see that an incomplete page move left Discrimination against the disabled and Ableism with divergent versions of the same page, before the former was redirected to the latter in September. Could someone more experienced with this sort of thing sort out some sort of merger please? Rd232 17:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Page history merged under Ableism. Jafeluv (talk) 23:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Please check user talk page

User talk page User talk:DictioNANIE out of scope ?--Musamies (talk) 08:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Please delete userpage

Please delete userpage User:GMatt00, out of scope--Musamies (talk) 18:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Instead of coming here and telling us, all you have to do is tag the page for deletion. Please read Misplaced Pages:Deletion process to learn about this. -- œ 18:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Tagged with CSD A7 (as is Project Destiny). — Edokter • Talk • 18:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Does A7 apply to Userspace? Arakunem 18:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

No, Article criteria (A1-A10) only apply to articles. Userpages can only be speedied under the general criteria (G1-G2) or userspace criteria (U1-U3). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Might want to get Dignity (band) also. ⇒SWATJester 21:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I work in finnish wikipedia and there are system different, now I know--Musamies (talk) 19:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:GMatt00. MER-C 04:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Fundraiser launch tomorrow

Hello AN,

Just a reminder that the 2010 fundraiser will kick off tomorrow morning. Please be on the lookout for any issues; you can report them in #wikimedia-fundraising in IRC, or to me via the user email function. Example: someone blocks the fundraising banners from the main page, that'd be a big deal, but minor issues are important too. The more successful we are, the faster the banners go away, so lets help make this a success. Please also consider joining the Misplaced Pages Contribution Team if you'd like to assist through article contributions and other non-financial ways. Regards, ⇒DanRosenthal 18:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

this is an odd thread. Does 'tomorrow' mean the 16th November? - I'm pretty sure the fundraiser is scheduled to start 15th Nov, but either ways, the timestamp shenanigans are kinda counter-productive here, making the important information almost impossible to discern! doh! Privatemusings (talk) 23:10, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The fundraiser officially launches on the 15th. However, starting tomorrow (Friday, the 12th) we'll be going to 100% on the banners for final load testing. So, even though the launch is actually Monday, most users will be seeing it as if it were tomorrow. As a result, we really want the weekend to find and address any issues. ⇒DanRosenthal 23:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

thanks for the clarification :-) - it was the fact that you appear to have made the op four days into the future which confuddles me :-) (good luck and fingers crossed for a smooth launch too....) Privatemusings (talk) 23:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, duh. Yes, I signed it in the future to make it last longer. ⇒DanRosenthal 01:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Wait, I can sign things in the future? I will be able to avoid WP:CRYSTAL that way! :-P (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Backlog at a new page

Hi again. I've just built up a small backlog for a page that was recently moved. Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup/RD1 Requests is where it is if anyone's interested. Minimac (talk) 21:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

RevisionDeletion noticeboard (II)

• See proposed Misplaced Pages noticeboard at Misplaced Pages:Revision deletion/Noticeboard.
• See Misplaced Pages talk:Revision deletion/Noticeboard to discuss this (to avoid splitting the discussion across multiple venues).

1RR for the Arab-Israeli conflict articles

A recent discussion at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Arbitration Enforcement/Israel-Palestine articles has established a consensus to impose a 1RR restriction on the entire Arab-Israeli conflict set of articles. There's a template {{Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement}}, which has a shortcut of {{ARBPIA}}, to place on talk pages to explain the situation. PhilKnight (talk) 12:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea.  Sandstein  16:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

BLPs and maintenance tags

WP:PEREN indicates that we're not going to get consensus to move maintenance tags off the articles and onto talk, so I have proposed a simple change that might mitigate the impact of maintenance tags on BLP subjects: Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)#Maintenance tags.

Basically, the proposal is that we add an optional flag argument to collapse the maintenance box and show just a simple note that says "Misplaced Pages understands it needs to improve this article" or some such. It can then be expanded for more detail including the date of the tagging and so on. Also I propose that the flag adds text to the note that says we recognise this is about the state of the article not a subjective judgment on the subject. Guy (Help!) 13:29, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards