Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Erpert (talk | contribs) at 06:09, 14 August 2013 (This is like middle school all over again). 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

This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared.

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 38 as Misplaced Pages:Closure requests/Archive 37 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

Archives

Index no archives yet (create)

This page has archives. Sections older than 2 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 4 sections are present.

• WP:CR
• WP:RFCL
• WP:ANRFC

Use the closure requests noticeboard to ask an uninvolved editor to assess, summarize, and formally close a Misplaced Pages discussion. Do so when consensus appears unclear, it is a contentious issue, or where there are wiki-wide implications (e.g. any change to our policies or guidelines).

Do not list discussions where consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.

Move on – do not wait for someone to state the obvious. In some cases, it is appropriate to close a discussion with a clear outcome early to save our time.

Do not post here to rush the closure. Also, only do so when the discussion has stabilised.

On the other hand, if the discussion has much activity and the outcome isn't very obvious, you should let it play out by itself. We want issues to be discussed well. Do not continue the discussion here.

There is no fixed length for a formal request for comment (RfC). Typically 7 days is a minimum, and after 30 days the discussion is ripe for closure. The best way to tell is when there is little or no activity in the discussion, or further activity is unlikely to change its result.

When the discussion is ready to be closed and the outcome is not obvious, you can submit a brief and neutrally worded request for closure.

Include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing easier. Move discussions go in the 'other types' section.

Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.

Closing discussions carries responsibility, doubly so if the area is contentious. You should be familiar with all policies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion (consult your draft closure at the discussions for discussion page if unsure). Be prepared to fully answer questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that editors may have.

Non-admins can close most discussions. Admins may not overturn your non-admin closures just because you are not an admin, and this is not normally in itself a problem at reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would need tools or edit permissions you do not have access to. Articles for deletion and move discussion processes have more rules for non-admins to follow.

If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here. Instead follow advice at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.

Other areas tracking old discussions

• Misplaced Pages:Requested moves#Elapsed listings
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Old
• Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion
• Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure
• Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion#Old discussions
• Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion#Old business
• Misplaced Pages:Proposed mergers/Log
• Misplaced Pages:Proposed article splits

Administrative discussions

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive367#Close challenge for Talk:1948 Arab–Israeli War#RFC for Jewish exodus

(Initiated 26 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 24 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 93 days ago on 7 October 2024) Tough one, died down, will expire tomorrow. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

(Initiated 63 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 54 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 47 days ago on 22 November 2024) Legobot has removed the RFC notice. Can we please get an interdependent close. TarnishedPath 23:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RFC_Science-Based_Medicine

(Initiated 32 days ago on 7 December 2024) slowed for a while Bluethricecreamman (talk) 06:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Deletion discussions

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

(Initiated 20 days ago on 20 December 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Arab migrations to the Levant#Merger Proposal

(Initiated 106 days ago on 25 September 2024) Open for a while, requesting uninvolved closure. Andre🚐 22:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump#Proposal: Age and health concerns regarding Trump

(Initiated 85 days ago on 16 October 2024) Experienced closer requested. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:57, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

 Closed by editor S Marshall. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.  20:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Winter fuel payment abolition backlash#Merge proposal

(Initiated 72 days ago on 29 October 2024) There are voices on both sides (ie it is not uncontroversial) so a non-involved editor is needed to evaluate consensus and close this. Thanks. PamD 09:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Israel–Hamas war#Survey

(Initiated 63 days ago on 7 November 2024) Looking for uninvolved close in CTOP please, only a few !votes in past month. I realise this doesn't require closing, but it is preferred in such case due to controversial nature of topic. CNC (talk) 10:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

•  Note: I'm happy to perform the merge if required, as have summarised other sections of this article already with consensus. I realise it's usually expected to perform splits or merges when closing discussions, but in this case it wouldn't be needed. CNC (talk) 20:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Shiv Sena#Merge proposal

(Initiated 43 days ago on 27 November 2024) Discussion seems to have stopped. As the proposal is not uncontroversial, and I, as the initiator, am involved, I am requesting an uninvolved editor to close the discussion. Arnav Bhate (talk • contribs) 11:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Request to amend sanctions on Syrian civil war articles

The motion on Syrian civil war articles (see ) concludes that a number of Syrian conflict-related articles, which had been 1RR sanctioned under ARBPIA from March until July 2013 (including 3 blockings and 1 warning), in general do not fit the general category of Arab-Israeli disputes. However, since there is a general agreement that 1RR sanctions are required on relevant Syrian civil war articles due to edit-warring and sock-puppeting, those articles shall continue to fall under ARBPIA restriction for 30 days and in the meanwhile a discussion would be opened at WP:AN (this discussion) in order to determine whether there is consensus to continue the restrictions in effect as community-based restrictions, either as they currently exist or in a modified form; also any notifications and sanctions are meanwhile to be logged at Talk:Syrian civil war/Log. I herewith propose the community to apply on alternative sanction tool (perhaps "Syrian civil war 1RR tool") on relevant Syrian civil war articles, in order to properly resolve the existing edit-warring problem, prevent confusion of editors and administrators regarding if and when the sanctions are relevant, and in a way to reduce automatic association of Syrian conflict with the generally unrelated Israeli-Palestinian conflict.Greyshark09 (talk) 20:27, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Case summary

This request comes as a result of motion (see ), passed regarding Syrian civil war articles on 21 July, following an Arbcom request for amendment and clarification (see ). The issue was also previously discussed at Talk:Syrian civil war and recommended for Arbcom solution by an involved administrator (see ).

As an initiator of the original request for amendment and clarification, i would like to bring to community's attention the dilemma of problematic application of ARBPIA restriction on Syrian civil war articles, though acknowledging that 1RR restriction for some (or possibly all) Syrian civil war related articles is most probably required. As concluded by the Arbcom motion on July 21, there is no general relation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the expanded conflict between Israel and Arab League (ARBPIA sanctions) to the ongoing Syrian conflict, except perhaps some separate incidents. In addition:

• the several limited incidents (without fatalities) on Israeli-Syrian border during Quneitra Governorate fighting between rebels and government are a WP:UNDUE reason to extend 1RR over entire Syrian civil war topic area; moreover Syrian Ba'athist government is no longer a part of the Arab League, while its seat is supposed to be given to Syrian opposition, which is so far neutral to Israel.
• the use 1RR tool at Syrian civil war articles prior to the above described motion had not even distantly related in any way to the Israel-Palestine topic (see sanctioned cases , ). Some editors also pointed out that application of ARBPIA tool, while referring only to certain aspects of Syrian conflict, creates a great deal of confusion for both editors and administrators when and where 1RR application is relevant.
• the incidents of air or missile attacks, allegedly performed by Israel against Iranian, Hezbollah and Syrian Ba'athist targets in Syria, may fall under the Iran-Israel proxy conflict and most probably not the generally preceding and different conflict between Israel and the Arab League.

It is hence required that ARBPIA sanctions would be replaced by other relevant sanctions tool on Syrian conflict.Greyshark09 (talk) 20:27, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Please put further comments and opinions here.

• Proposed.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:29, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
• The Syrian civil war is far from an Arab-Israeli conflict. Not even close. Currently, only the Syria article, the Syrian civil war article and its military infobox template are under ARBPIA restrictions. Most of the edit-warring in the Syria conflict topic has been fought over the military infobox and also the what the legitimate flag of Syria should be. Other articles related to the Syrian civil war are not under any sanctions, and it should stay that way. These other articles do not frequently experience edit wars. I support replacing ARBPIA with something more relevant, but oppose placing any more articles than the 3 I mentioned under 1RR restrictions.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:59, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
• Given the on-wiki conflict over the real-life conflict, I see no reason to get rid of the sanctions. Yes, it shouldn't be under ARBPIA restrictions, but maintaining the 1RR etc probation is helpful. Let's change nothing except for the reason behind the restrictions. Nyttend (talk) 01:08, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
• I agree with Nyttend: this is an area of considerable controversy among Misplaced Pages editors, and the 1RR restrictions are necessary in this subject area in their own right. As such, they should be maintained. Nick-D (talk) 06:44, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
• As an editor that works in military history space in an (at the very least) equally contentious area (the Balkans in WWII), I thoroughly agree with Nyttend on this. Where 1RR has been applied under ARBMAC (for example), it has tended to reduce the amount of edit-warring and other nonsense. It encourages real contributors onto the talk page where these matters should be discussed, and deters trolls and other ne'er-do-well's. My point is that ARBMAC was originally only for Macedonia, but has now been applied to all Balkans-related articles, broadly defined. That, in my opinion, is a good thing, as it focuses editors on contributing, instead of edit-warring over minutiae. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:53, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
• Not only do I completely agree with Nyttend, but I actually think the Syrian civil war should be placed under discretionary sanctions on its own merits. Do you know what will happen if there's nothing in place to prevent POV-pushing? There will be two distinctive groups trying to reshape the main article and all other related pages based on their perception of the confict:

1. Pro-Assad editors of every sort, whether they be patriotic Shiite Muslims or far-left conspiracy theorists. They will try to paint the dictator in an unduly positive light by mitigating the negative coverage of his regime, all the while emphasizing any and all incidents attributed to either the Free Syrian Army or the al-Nusra Front to make it seem as if the entire rebellion is an Islamist insurgency backed by Western governments.
2. Anti-Assad editors who reject the very notion that significant atrocities have also been committed by the rebels (particularly the al-Nusra Front), and will work to sweep any mention of terrorism against the regime under the rug.

There is general consensus among independent observers that both sides have committed war crimes, but that the Assad regime's offences far eclipse those of the rebels. Nevertheless, we must avoid giving undue weight to either side. It needs to be made clear that Assad loyalists are behind most of the abuses, but their opponents have also staged attacks against security and civilian targets. The last time I visited the article, this was already achieved. Allowing either of the aforementioned groups free reign over pages related to the civil war will jeopardize our efforts to cover the topic in an impartial manner. Kurtis 16:18, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

• Fist, I'm opposed to shoehorning conduct into a policy that doesn't fit. Outside the Isreal related articles, its clearly outside ARBPIA, and the sanctions do not apply. As a practical matter, by the time we reach consensus on that, we could have already reached consensus on sanctions generally. The ARBPIA sanction regime is particularly aggressive, in that, in addition to the imposition of discretionary sanctions, it applies a blanket 1rr rule to the entire topic area, . I think standard community imposed discretionary sanctions would be more appropriate, which could of course involve revert restrictions on certain articles if required. Monty₈₄₅ 20:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
• I support ongoing 1RR and discretionary sanctions as a community sanction in Syria-related articles, for the forseeable future. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:54, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Closing

I would like to ask a closure for this amendment request, since involved parties have already expressed opinions and the 30 day-period of temporal sanctions (resulted by motion on July 21 ) is about to finish.Greyshark09 (talk) 20:47, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Apteva

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

I am raising the concern here about the talk page. An editor has left a message regarding a rfc Apteva created. Apteva is currently unable to respond as his talkpage access has been revoked. Several editors have taken it on themselves to revert that persons addition to the page. I believe this is out of order, an indefinite block is exactly that indefinite, could be a day, week or years. I do not believe that gives them the right however to revert other peoples posting if it isn't disruptive to the project and I request that if an administrator thinks that no one should post there that the page be given full protection. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:40, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

• The comment by Dohn Joe was utterly unhelpful, and should never have been made; they knew full well that Apteva had no talk page access, given the location of the message. It was a RM notification, and Apteva won't be unblocked in the next week. You shouldn't have edit-warred to keep the comment there, end of story. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:01, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I have zero problems doing what I did. If no comments should be left it should have been protected. End of Story Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:04, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Sigh, what happened to AGF re:Dohn Joe's comment? He probably didn't realize that Apteva was blocked. The subsequent edit warring is some of the lamest I've ever had the misfortune of seeing, from all parties involved. GiantSnowman 13:06, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
      • When it's all said and done I would be willing to support inclusion in WP:LAME. If you cannot laugh at yourself; who can you laugh at? PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 13:08, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
        • I don't care if it's listed or not, however the relevant guidelines to my actions are found at WP:TPO which state "The basic rule—with some specific exceptions outlined below—is that you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission." The purpose in my post here is to just solve the issue. The fact that Dicklyon and PantherLeapord reverted doesn't really raise to needing administrator action, it's the idea behind it. If no one should post there it should be protected, if not it's business as usual unless it is blatant attacks or vandalism. I would however advise that User:PantherLeapord's using rollback to make that change is not appropriate at all. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:12, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

• There's a huge difference between "no-one should post there" and posting an RM message, inviting an indefinitely blocked user to participate. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:15, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

• Not to mention that the indef-blocked user is the one that STARTED the RM in the first place! PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 13:19, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I didn't think he was involved with the actual question I was raising. I will notify him if you prefer, but the main question I was raising is should the page be protected fully or not. If it should then let's do it, if it's not and it's not vandalism or personal attacks then people should leave it alone. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:25, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I've already notified him - as you should have done, seeing as his initial edit was under question as well. There is no reason to protect the page - Dohn Joe's post about an RM was fine, your edit warring over it was not. WP:BOOMERANG. GiantSnowman 13:27, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I never reverted it more then three times, I made three request via the edit summary and on the fourth I took it here to resolve the overall question. Had I went past three or waited a 24 hour period then started to go at it again I'd agree. As it stands I didn't and because there was no problem with the comment itself I would ask that PantherLeapord re-add it. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:30, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

You are aware of

I am aware it states "A revert means undoing the actions of another editor. The 3RR says an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period.' I am also confident though that an administrator (yes I'm aware you are one) would not consider that a blockable offense as "an edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so" I think that in the end I followed the guidelines found at WP:TPO. When it came time that could no longer do so I asked for page protection or reinstating the comment. I'm sorry you disagree. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:42, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

• I've warned both parties for edit warring. I hope it is now clear to everyone involved that, right or wrong, edit warring is always the wrong way to deal with it, whether you breach 3RR or not. Seriously, this one of the lamest edit wars I have ever seen as it literally makes zero difference one way or the other.

If I was picking sides, yea, Hell in a Bucket is right, there was and is no legitimate reason to remove the post. Posts are made to blocked users pages all day long every day. But discussion, not edit warring, is the proper way to address such concerns. Seriously, can't we all just leave the Apteva-related drama behind? Why would anyone be so gung-ho to remove a post from the page of a blocked user? the whole thing is nonsense and I sincerely hope all involved parties will just admit that the edit warring was stupid and move along to something that less pointless. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:14, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Dumb yes I realize. I disagree that it doesn't matter but discussion is usually the way to go. I'm not always keen on that because I feel it's a waste of time but I understand it does avoid a few things like accusations of edit wars, etc. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:54, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I think Beeblebrox has correctly summarized the situation. Someone not using his real name (talk) 17:21, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Hey folks - I'm the one who left the message in question. I did it out of an abundance of canvassing caution. Looking back, it was certainly unnecessary, because Apteva had opened the RfC at issue. As to the broader issue, though, I agree with H in a B and Beeblebrox - people leave messages and notifications for blocked users all the time. Dohn joe (talk) 17:43, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban on Beeblebrox and the Article Incubator

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

• It is time to call for a topic ban on Beeblebrox and the incubator.  He is objectively delusional about the topic, as I have shown at WT:Article incubator.  He has had more than one opportunity to objectively review his comments and withdraw them, but refuses to bring his view in alignment with objective reality.  The good news is that his latest attempts today to attack specific articles in the incubator is an admission that his desire to stop the volunteers in the incubator using admin tools with an RfC is not going well.  After posting once on his page, he immediately demanded that I not post there, so if someone would be so kind as to notify him I would appreciate it.  Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 18:31, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

• And of course, claiming someone is "delusional" is not a violation of NPA, is it? I have notified Beeblebrox, but I equally have no idea why you have brought this here. Black Kite (talk) 18:36, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
• You cannot possibly think that starting out a thread at AN with "He is objectively delusional" is going to result in a productive discussion. Some will see this as a red flag to attack you, others will see it as a reason to bring up their own pet peeves with Beeblebrox, others (like me) will take it as evidence that there's nothing substative to the complaint and will move on. But nothing productive is going to happen unless you (a) tone it down, and (b) explain what in the world you're talking about. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:41, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

• Having had a chance to look at this now, this probably ought to be closed now per WP:BOOMERANG. Unscintillating, you need to, very quickly indeed, explain why you believe a topic ban is required here - with diffs - or it will be closed. I see no issue whatsoever (indeed, Beeblebrox's RFC even has marginal support, although it's probably no consensus). Black Kite (talk) 18:46, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

• Diffs of disruption, if there even is any, if you would be so kind? GiantSnowman 18:49, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

New incubator MFD nominations by Beeblebrox, WP:Article Incubator/Greenhouse workflow stopped

After my WP:AN posting yesterday, Beeblebrox nominated yet another five incubated articles for deletion.  In one 8-hour period, he has nominated 7 out of 47 or 15% of the articles in the incubator.  One of the articles that was nominated is in the Greenhouse workflow.  This stops the work in the Greenhouse.  It is not realistic to donate time on articles in the incubator when the existence of the work is volatile, which is why the Greenhouse was shut down during the WT:Article Incubator/2013 June mass MfD.  There is currently a discussion at WP:VPP about a case in which an incubated article was deleted without notice or process because of an article created in mainspace.  Back to the Greenhouse, unlike Beeblebrox, the Greenhouse process makes an effort to notify involved editors.  Thus the post I made at Talk:Wikimedia Foundation is now erroneous.  The article has received seven edits by two editors within the last week.  Beeblebrox could have joined the discussion on the talk page.  Beeblebrox needs to agree to withdraw his seven nominations and agree to disengage from his continuing WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior at the incubator.  Unscintillating (talk) 06:45, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

So, for everybody's first question "what the hell is the greenhouse?" I will explain for you. The greenhouse is an expansion of the article incubator created and used by exactly one user, (seriously, he is literally the only person to have ever edited it, along with having several conversations with himself on various incubator related talk pages) the one who opened yet another thread about what an evil person I am for trying to take out the trash that has been collecting in that neglected back corner of WP. This nonsenss about a greenhouse workflow is pure fantasy. In his imaginings, all the incubator needs is to be expanded with portals, greenhouses, magic rainbows, etc and it will start functioning properly again. There is absolutely no reason for me to withdraw anything, the community will discuss these items and they may or may not be deleted, or moved to mainspace, or merged, or just kept where they are.

By the way, Mr. Unscintilating, the fact that I told you I did not want to engage in direct discussion with you any longer does not exempt you from the requirement that you inform subjects of discussions you open here. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:42, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Formalising community ban of KuhnstylePro

I'd like to direct the community's attention to the case of User:KuhnstylePro, indefed for creating an extensive and very clever not-entirely-walled garden of hoax articles, often cut-and-pasted from wikias set up (from the evidence) by the same person for a variety of fake Disney Channel and Frederator Studios shows and Cartoon Network-based video games. This editor - or one/some indistinguishable from him - have, since their block a few months back, been on a sockpuppeting spree, repeatedly creating new accounts, with increasing frequency, to recreate the same hoax articles - sometimes even still with maintenance tags with dates indicating they were lifted from the previously-deleted copy. I know there's the usual "de facto banned" argument to be made here, but a formalisation of a community ban would make it easier, at least from an "all i's dotted and all t's crossed" perspective, to deal with this sockpuppeting hoax creator. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:49, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Hoaxes, copyvios and socking? Strong Support just to fill in the blanks. Blackmane (talk) 11:12, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Support per above. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  02:29, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support - Dealing with Kuhn was already crazy enough, now he's socking? Get the banhammer out, this is insane. ZappaOMati 02:37, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support per above. --I am One of Many (talk) 06:42, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support Really tired of having to deal with this one on kid's channel articles besides the usual vandalism there; no way this user is here to contribute anything truthful. Much thanks for the protection on Kinect Rush 2: A Cartoon Network Adventure, BTW. Also, is there anyway to just blacklist the Video Game Ideas Wikia on just that one section of the site? Nate • (chatter) 19:46, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Sockpuppeteering, writing copyvios and hoax articles demonstrate that the community cannot waste any more time on this individual's actions. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:27, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support Woah. — ΛΧΣ 20:28, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support — Multiple sockpuppets, personal attacks, vandalism, and hoaxes. Big duh. --SamX‧☎‧✎‧S 21:45, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

ℛℳ creation blocked

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

I was going to create this as a redirect to Reichsmark. Is there a technical reason why this is blacklisted, perhaps not being able to have more than one special character in a title? 8ty3hree (talk) 03:14, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Yes, alphabet lookalike characters are usually blacklisted. 28bytes (talk) 03:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I understand that this discussion is archived, and I am not modifying it. But it seems to indicate that a Redirect from ℛℳ is disallowed, yet I see that Redirect ℛℳ exists! Am I missing something? David Spector (talk) 13:52, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

The title was blacklisted. However, after it was brought here, 28bytes used spooooooky admin powers to create the desired redirect. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:50, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

User name

Maybe I'm wrong here; if so, please give me a hint.In DE:WP, I'm using the name ″Freud″ for nearly eight years, so I want to use the same name (it's my real name, too) in the EN:WP. The ″create account″ function tells me the name is already in use, but there is no user:Freud. Is there a way to get this name? I'm also using it worldwide at Commons for uploading pictures. Thank you. --2003:65:EE2B:4A00:90DD:E20C:CA39:B4FA (talk) 14:42, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• There is a user by that name (the just have no undeleted contribs). If you own the WP:SUL for Freud then I think this is one of the cases you can usurp the account. See Misplaced Pages:Changing_username/Usurpations for info. --Errant 14:49, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. --2003:65:EE2B:4A00:90DD:E20C:CA39:B4FA (talk) 15:14, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Freud made two contributions: he edited Template:Ph:Starting a new page and created The Whole Site, both in late 2004. The template got deleted as a result of Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Meta-based Help: content templates (his edit to the template got removed almost immediately by someone else), while The Whole Site apparently got deleted as web-based nonsense (see speedy deletion criterion A7); its whole contents were "The Whole Site" is an internet catch phrase often used by stupid people in message board settings. It denotes that the entire community (not half, or the majority) feels hatred and bitterness towards a better poster, and therefore is the most moronic phrase in message board history. Since the user doesn't have any contributions to active pages and did nothing except two pieces of vandalism nine years ago, I can't expect that you'll have problems. Nyttend (talk) 18:16, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Early closure of Elexis Monroe deletion review

• Now, before anyone accuses me of forum shopping or beating a dead horse, let me point out right away that this action is what I was instructed to do (I think this forum would work better than WT:DRV). Basically, four days ago I opened a deletion review for the article Elexis Monroe because I thought it was speedily deleted unfairly (and without warning), and the deleting admin would not restore it. There were !votes of "keep" and "delete" in either direction, and the main concern I had was that the !delete voters seemed to be ignoring that Ms. Monroe passed the relevant guideline (WP:PORNBIO) simply because they didn't like the subject.

At one point, another user made a personal comment about me, and after I responded, another user made an even more personal comment about me. I then suggested that people focus on the subject at hand instead of me, and thankfully those kinds of comments ceased, but then User:Spartaz (the admin who closed the DR) suggested that everyone cool off because the discussion was apparently getting too heated. There’s nothing wrong with that suggestion, but I informed him/her that that wasn’t going on anymore.

The reason why I brought up the personal comments is because it seemed like Spartaz used that aspect as an excuse to close the discussion early, which I think was inappropriate for two reasons:

1. S/he blamed me for personalizing discussions when I'm the one whose personal life was brought into it; and
2. S/he appears to have a bias against pornography-related articles, as evidenced here.

Now, I understand if s/he is “the regular DRV closer” as s/he claims, but is s/he the only DRV closer? If it were felt that the discussion indeed had to be closed early, it should have been listed at WP:ANRFC and then closed by an uninvolved admin (granted, Spartaz only made comments in this discussion and not an actual !vote, but the aforementioned bias kind of clouds things). In addition, the article itself was then deleted by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, another admin who appears to share that bias (and if people think I’m unfairly accusing other users of having a bias, you’ll notice that said users have yet to actually deny a bias). Erpert 16:26, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: I merely carried out the DRV result as determined by Spartaz, by re-deleting the article that had been temp-restored for the duration of the DRV. Spartaz apparently forgot to do this, but it was a purely technical necessity at that point. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:34, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• As the deleting admin, and a participant in the discussion, I do think it was inappropriately personalised, and that Erpert was partly responsible for that. Hut 8.5 16:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• I mean, when someone says to quit making comments about other editors or they will close the debate, and then Erpert makes another comment about other editors... well, honestly, it looks like a good close to me. Erpert's not entirely to blame (who cares what userboxes an editor has? How is that relevant?), but his edits were part of the problem. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 18:51, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
  • As I clearly showed from the diffs above, Spartaz suggested that after that situation was over. And Hut, please explain how I personalized it when comments were clearly made about me first. Erpert 19:24, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Spartaz stated - in this diff - that the thread would be closed if personal comments continued. You did indeed state that that problem had ended (here, two edits later), but then almost immediately made another personal comment questioning the motives of editors who disagreed with you (the diff I cited, here). The situation ended when Spartaz closed the debate, precisely as he said he would. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 02:46, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
      • Exactly right. While Guy1890 began the run of inappropriate personal comments, Erpert continued them, particularly casting aspersions on admins who didn't share his opinions (a practice further on display here). His edits at the DRV are hard to see as anything but deliberate defiance/baiting of Spartaz, whose warning was quite standard. This kind of behavior has marked Erpert's participation in deletion-related discussions for some time, going back at least to here , but his behavior doesn't change. We're really at the point where editing restrictions should be considered. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:01, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Ultra, that comment was far from personalizing anything. A question was asked and I answered it; simple as that. (And HW, given your entire talk page, you are the last person who should be talking about editing restrictions.) Erpert 03:13, 13 August 2013 (UTC)`

There. RIGHT THERE. You just did it again. You don't discuss the merits of what HW said, or where he might be mistaken, or that there's some aspect of the situation that he maybe did not examine, or whatever - you jump right to commenting on HW himself. What does HW's talk page have to do with the Elexis Monroe DRV, your conduct thereon, or the price of beans in China? The fact that you don't see how problematic your edits are getting is, itself, problematic. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 12:38, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I don't understand this. First of all, HW said something first and I responded, yet you only said something to me. If you think personal comments are being shot in either direction, you should say something to both people, not just one. But importantly, this thread is supposed to be about the DRV; nothing else. Can we get back to that, please?

Speaking of that, the original question I asked still hasn't been answered...why couldn't an uninvolved admin have closed the discussion? Erpert 14:39, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

• That whole thing was, IMO, a mess. First of all, you did personalize it first here but it certainly escalated rapidly and got way too personal resulting in what I saw as unacceptable attacks on you. As Ultraexactzz points out, you've managed to personalize it here too. I realize you feel that the issue is the people, but you need to focus instead on the issues.

That said, there is a broader problem, and that is the people involved. There is a group of editors who feel we cover too much in the way of porn and are pretty vocal about it (dismissing the relevant subject guideline, showing up to AfDs and porn discussions a lot, etc.) There also seem to be a number of folks who would like to see our porn coverage increased and tend to push the envelope a bit (recreating an article deleted 1 year ago when there are no new sources/awards for example). It might be nice to have a DRV (and perhaps later an AfD) on this topic without either of those voices. But this case, even though I !voted to relist at the DRV, was really weak. Nothing had really changed other than the relevant guideline (and it got tightened up if anything). Even if it had been relisted, it seems quite unlikely it would be kept (as I noted in the DRV I'd have !voted to delete given the evidence presented thus far and I'm generally on the inclusionist side of things). So I think the early close of the DRV was reasonable given the heat/light ratio was so poor (mostly not due to you though started by you IMO) and the final outcome (remaining deleted) was pretty clear.

I'd urge you to avoid personalizing the issues in the future, especially at DRV. Make your arguments about the topic, not about the editors. Yes, there are a group of editors who would seemingly prefer to keep as much porn-related material off of Misplaced Pages as possible. But that's just what it is and attacking them isn't going to help you win your arguments (and will in fact hurt, especially at DRV). Hobit (talk) 15:27, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I just lost a large edit to an EC - which probably means I went on too long about it. Suffice to say, Hobit nails much of what I would've said. Erpert, you need to comment on content, not on the contributor. At the DRV, Spartaz told everyone (not just you) to stop it, you didn't, and so he closed the DRV. Your complaints here are that 1. Spartaz complained that you personalized the discussion, and 2. That Spartaz should not close the DRV because he/she is biased against pornography. Well, on point 1, you did personalize the discussion, as I showed above. Now, others did so as well, and that's not right either, but that doesn't change your edits. And your complaint on point 2 is precisely the sort of evidence that proves point 1 - you don't say whether the close was a valid interpretation of policy, or whether the result is in line with consensus at the time of the close, but rather you attack the motivation of the closer. And that's a personalized comment on the contributor, not the content, and that's precisely the problem with your edits. And it needs to stop. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 15:34, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think I have anything substantive to add to what Hobit, Ultraexactzz and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz have already said. DRV does tend to close disruptive discussions early and I gave two warnings on this one before ending the DRV. 3 DRV regulars have looked at my close and seem to think its OK. I can't see that we have anything left to discuss about my conduct here. What does disturb me is that Erbert doesn't seem to recognise that his own conduct was suboptimal and that you cannot win any argument by throwing dirt at those who disagree with you. Please stick to discussing content and policy rather then casting aspertions about the motivations and biases of other users. Thanks. Spartaz 05:27, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
  • It's amazing how I'm being accused on commenting on contributors instead of content when I'm not only the one who was attacked first, but I even tried to steer the discussion back to the topic at hand. I guess it's everyone versus Erpert after all. I don't even care about this topic anymore. Erpert 06:09, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrator intervention against vandalism

No admin actions taken in the past 5 hours - Misplaced Pages:Administrator intervention against vandalism -- Moxy (talk) 23:06, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Previous admin action was at 21:30, 96 minutes prior. Admins only need to edit the page to decline requests or leave comments, the bot handles removing blocked editors. Monty₈₄₅ 23:16, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

This comment will be obsolete in a few minutes, but for now AIV is empty. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:35, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

67.87.140.155 (he has returned)

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

67.87.140.155 is back from doing a spree on post fake volumes on Disney's Sing Along Songs, Disney's Greatest Hits, Eric Carle, The Disney Collection: The Best-Loved Songs from Disney Motion Pictures, Television, and Theme Parks. I also saw a sock puppet of him also doing the similar edits. Please stop this guy!! ACMEWikiNet (talk) 00:30, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

These reports should normally go to the Incidents noticeboard; however, I did the needful and blocked for 3 months (pattern vandalism, repeat customer, prior block 2 weeks, fifth block this summer). Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:33, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding MarshalN20

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment that:

Not withstanding the sanction imposed on MarshalN20 (talk · contribs) in Argentine History, he may edit Falkland Islands, its talk page, and pages related to a featured article candidacy for the article. This exemption may be withdrawn by Basalisk (talk · contribs) at any time, or by motion of the Arbitration Committee.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:24, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Discuss this

Problem about sandbox / page move

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

Hi,

I made a page about an Italian artist named Saro Tribastone in my sandbox. My user name is Urva222. After finishing the article, I moved it to the address: http://en.wikipedia.org/Saro_Tribastone

Now, it shows up well on this page. But when I delete any content in my sandbox, the content on the page http://en.wikipedia.org/Saro_Tribastone also gets deleted. Why is it so? Then how can I make another articles without deleting the content from sandbox? And how to make the Saro Tribastone page permanent? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Urva222 (talk • contribs) 08:16, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Inappropriate language on the Xbox One page

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

I was reading the Xbox one page and this came up.

The xbox likes to have intercourse with men beacause it is gay.'

I found this to be inappropriate as young children may be looking at the page, therefore please can you remove it immediately.

Thank-you for your co-operation, Misplaced Pages User — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.101.198.57 (talk) 12:14, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, this isn't really the place to request this sort of thing, but it was removed almost instantly (info that blatantly disruptive is almost always removed on such a high profile page) and I've blocked the user for being a vandalism-only account. Should be taken care of. Sergecross73 msg me 12:29, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

(ec) I could still see it, and had to clear the article cache to make it go away. Everything should be okay now. -- Diannaa (talk) 12:42, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Question about discretionary sanctions page restrictions

I have left a few questions about page restrictions (e.g. 1RR) that have been imposed under discretionary sanctions at Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration/Requests#Question about discretionary sanctions page restrictions that I would appreciate input on. NW (Talk) 15:41, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Unblock discussion archived without decision

The unblock discussion for User:Morts623 was archived without decision. I request that an administrator either closes the discussion and determines consensus, or unarchives for further input. Heymid (contribs) 19:17, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

If there is consensus to unblock, it's razor thin and based on numbers alone. The recent socking (within last 60-75 days) doesn't inspire confidence, either - and it's a stronger argument against unblocking than any of the arguments I see in favor. I'll defer to other admins, but my read is that there is no consensus for an unblock at this time. No objection to re-opening the thread, but I don't know that it will substantially alter the result. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 02:22, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

• While not an admin, I'd say the case for unblocking is moderately strong given that the socking was apparently just fixing spacing problems etc. per Tiptoety. I have problems holding that kind of a thing against a person. At the least I think it is worthy of a formal close. Hobit (talk) 03:38, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Request for closure of discussion at Talk:Agenda of the Tea Party movement

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

There was a proposed title change at Talk:Agenda of the Tea Party movement. Currently the "vote" is 5-2 opposed, so it's not very controversial. According to the template, discussion is supposed to last seven days. It's been seven days and about 18 hours. Would an uninvolved admin or senior editor please close the discussion? regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:30, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds closed

An arbitration case regarding Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds has now closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1) For conduct unbecoming an administrator, and for bringing the project into disrepute, Ironholds is desysopped and may regain the tools via a request for adminship.

2.2) For his history of incivility, which includes logging out to engage in vandalism and to make personal attacks on other editors on other Wikimedia projects, Ironholds is strongly admonished.

3) For numerous violations of Misplaced Pages's norms and policies, Kiefer.Wolfowitz is indefinitely banned from the English Language Misplaced Pages. He may request reconsideration of the ban twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every six months thereafter.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:51, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Discuss this

Community ban proposal: FiveSidedFistagon

FiveSidedFistagon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has presented the Jerry Sandusky barnstar, which is a personal attack and was blocked for these actions back in August of last year. His other sockpuppets were caught sockpuppetry at ANI back in December. Today, Flatus I (talk · contribs), whom I suspect is FSF as a sockpuppet, presented me and Ryulong (talk · contribs) with the Jerry Sandusky barnstar again. To date, he has created 12 sock puppets and 6 suspected sock puppets, and basically, this has gone on long enough and we can no longer accept his contributions. I propose that he should be indefinitely banned from Misplaced Pages for sockpuppetry and dirsuption. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:24, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I somehow managed to indef block Flatus I, and rollback his edits, even though he is not yet community banned. These discussions are, as I've said 3 dozen times before, pointless. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:39, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

More blocked sockpuppets: Flatus II (talk · contribs), Flatus III (talk · contribs), Flatus IV (talk · contribs), Flatus V (talk · contribs), Flatus VI (talk · contribs) (all blocked by Elockid (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)), Flatus VII (talk · contribs), Flatus VIII (talk · contribs), Flatus IX (talk · contribs), and Flatus X (talk · contribs) (all blocked by Reaper Eternal (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)). Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:30, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• Support as nominator. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:37, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:VisualEditor/Default State RFC

It's time to close Misplaced Pages:VisualEditor/Default State RFC. The initial four questions have been answered by large volumes of people, and the ratios are both stable and overwhelmingly lopsided. Activity is slow now, and the activity is in little side-squabbles in the discussion section, not on the main RFC.—Kww(talk) 05:37, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Administrative backlog