Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:02, 6 May 2016

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

• For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
• To request review of an administrator's action or other use of advanced permissions, use Misplaced Pages:Administrative action review
• If you are new, try the Teahouse instead.
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Misplaced Pages:Requests for oversight.
• For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.
• Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.
• Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• If you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, use {{RfC closure review}}

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

Template:Active editnotice

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

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

Archives

Index no archives yet (create)

This page has archives. Sections older than 6 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

• WP:CR
• WP:RFCL
• WP:ANRFC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other areas tracking old discussions

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

Administrative discussions

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

(Initiated 41 days ago on 13 December 2024) challenge of close at AN was archived nableezy - 05:22, 24 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 107 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 87 days ago on 28 October 2024) Participation/discussion has mostly stopped & is unlikely to pick back up again. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

(Initiated 77 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:Australia#RFC: Should the article state that Indigenous Australians were victims of genocide?

(Initiated 76 days ago on 8 November 2024), RFC expired weeks ago. GoodDay (talk) 21:33, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Catholic Church#RfC: Establishing an independent Catholicism article

(Initiated 28 days ago on 26 December 2024) Requesting closure from uninvolved impartial third party to close a discussion that has not seen a novel argument for a bit. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Deletion discussions

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 18#Category:Belarusian saints

(Initiated 34 days ago on 20 December 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done voorts (talk/contributions) 23:28, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 6#Category:Misplaced Pages oversighters

(Initiated 34 days ago on 20 December 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 10#WP:DISNEY categories

(Initiated 20 days ago on 3 January 2025) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 6#Redundant WPANIMATION categories

(Initiated 17 days ago on 6 January 2025) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 9#Category:Molossia Wikipedians

(Initiated 13 days ago on 9 January 2025) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 13#Redundant WP:COMICS categories

(Initiated 9 days ago on 13 January 2025) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 08:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

 Closed by editor Timrollpickering. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.  14:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 15#Redundant WP:RUSSIA categories

(Initiated 8 days ago on 15 January 2025) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:24, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Free and open-source software#Proposed merge of Open-source software and Free software into Free and open-source software

(Initiated 251 days ago on 17 May 2024) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Talk:Free and open-source software § Proposed merge of Open-source software and Free software into Free and open-source software? Thank you. — Newslinger talk 01:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Arab migrations to the Levant#Merger Proposal

(Initiated 120 days ago on 25 September 2024) Open for a while, requesting uninvolved closure. Andre🚐 22:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Winter fuel payment abolition backlash#Merge proposal

(Initiated 86 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:Dundas railway station, Sydney#Requested move 25 December 2024

(Initiated 29 days ago on 25 December 2024) – The discussion has reached a point where there is some agreement in favour or acceptance of moving most of the articles concerned to 'light rail station', with the arguable exception of Camellia railway station which may be discussed separately in a pursuant discussion.

There are, however, points of disagreement but the discussion has been inactive for twenty days now.

I wish to close the discussion so as to migrate and subsequently fix up the articles to reflect the recent reopening of a formerly-disused railway line.

Cheers, Will Thorpe (talk) 05:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 26 days ago on 27 December 2024) Proposed merge discussion originally opened on 30 May 2024, closed on 27 October 2024, and reopened on 27 December 2024 following the closure being overturned at AN. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Selected Ambient Works Volume II#Proposed merge of Stone in Focus into Selected Ambient Works Volume II

(Initiated 17 days ago on 6 January 2025) Seeking uninvolved closure; proposal is blocking GA closure czar 11:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump#Proposal to supersede consensus #50

(Initiated 13 days ago on 10 January 2025) Seeking uninvolved closure; its degenerated into silly sniping and has clearly run its course. Slatersteven (talk) 16:46, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Yup, the discussion does need to be closed. GoodDay (talk) 18:30, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Xiaohongshu#Requested move 14 January 2025

(Initiated 9 days ago on 14 January 2025) Seeking uninvolved closure; its been more than 7 days and there appears to be a consensus. There haven't been new opinions for almost three days now. Queen Douglas DC-3 (talk) 22:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

 Closed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.  09:12, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Someone is proposing a community ban

I have moved this discussion from ANI to here because admin user:KrakatoaKatie commented in it below that "Community ban discussions belong at AN". I hope we are now in the correct place. Tradedia 02:55, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Discussion here with examples provided: . Long story short, User:LightandDark2000 appears to be well versed in Misplaced Pages rules enough to defend himself lawyer style by insisting he acts in good faith and shouldn't be harassed or punitively blocked, but still refuses to engage users' criticism of his editing style. Criticisms include stretching ambiguous sources to support his edits, reverting sourced edits then not undoing that when corrected despite the restriction posed on us by the 1RR, and only engaging in minimal discussion whenever we try to bring up the topic. As I said in the discussion, this dispute dates back to at least June: .

Note this module is subject to WP:GS/SCW&ISIL and a 1RR. As I proposed in that discussion, letting an administrator talk to him may be more effective since he doesn't listen to us. NightShadeAEB (talk) 15:28, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Community ban discussions belong at AN, not on an article talk page. It certainly does seem that this editor is tendentious. The block log is longer than my arm. Katie 16:39, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

"The block log is longer than my arm" - That kind of jaded hyperbole is completely unnecessary, and in this case quite disingenuous. Just sayin'... - WOLFchild 21:26, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Wouldn't CB discussions be at WP:ANI (here)? WP:AN is mostly more esoteric admin notices, and isn't what "the community" rather, the subset of the community with any stomach for these discussions) pays much attention to.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  22:38, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

While AN is the better place for these things, it usually gets decided on ANI anyway. Everything happens on ANI. -- The Voidwalker 23:15, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Regardless as to whether or not ANI is the proper venue for discussing community bans, I have placed a hat on the discussion on the talk page, redirecting users to this thread. -- The Voidwalker 23:46, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I recently requested to get a topic ban lifted on WP:ANI only to be told toward the end when it was clear it would not be lifted that I should have made the request at WP:AN. While it is clear the article talk page is not the correct place for discussion of bans, we need clearer instructions for editors on where is the correct place. DrChrissy 23:54, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

The problem is deeper and more persistent than the above seems to indicate. User:LightandDark2000 is a POV pusher who has been a very disruptive editor for a long time on the Syria module. His bad faith, bad source edits that broke long established consensus has turned all editors against him. You can read entire sections of complaints about him on the talk pages: Talk:Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War/Archive 60#I propose community ban on user:LightandDark2000 editing Syria- and Iraq-related maps, Talk:Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War/Archive 50#LightandDark2000, Talk:Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War/Archive 60#Bad Edit: Raqqa Frontline and Module talk:Iraqi insurgency detailed map/Archive 4#User:LightandDark2000.

He has a habit of deleting complaint messages from his own talk page so that it would not reveal who he really is. Take a look at the history of edits of his talk page and you will discover dozens and dozens of deleted complaint messages from just the last year. Let me illustrate his general attitude by giving as an example, his latest "deletion". A user in good faith writes to him: "Your source: http://en.ypgnews.tk/2016/03/15/anti-is-forces-close-in-on-groups-raqqa-hq.html is a dead link. Please provide another source." You can verify that the link is indeed a dead link since it just leads you to the "main page" of the website (en.ypgnews.com). User:LightandDark2000 deletes the message with the edit summary: "It is not a dead link. Fix your computer." You can even see that in this same edit, he increments his "vandalism counter" ({{User:UBX/vandalized|47}}) by 1, implying that the user's message on his talk page, was vandalism!

Also there was a report about him at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive904#User:LightandDark2000 intentionally misinterpret sources for editing Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War and similar pages where he was blocked for one month. The mess he creates regularly takes time to be cleaned. He injects in the map his POV pushing and total disregard for other editors’ opinions, sources and established consensus & rules. He has done nothing but make the map wrong with his POV pushing & unresponsive behavior towards other editors. I am asking for him to be permanently banned from Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map. Tradedia 17:33, 19 March 2016 (UTC) @bot: do not archive yet. 20:37, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I have noticed that almost every single feed in the links provided are run/dominated by users that hate me. I see this, as well as this entire proposal, as unfairly biased. You cannot proposal a ban, or a block, just because someone has made a number of mistakes (in good faith, I might add). By the way, a permanent ban is unnecessary overkill (See WP:PUNITIVE). I have never tried to "ruin the map" or "vandalize", or "force my own point of view", I only tried to edit honestly according to the rules of Misplaced Pages, and recently, the localized rules added in in the sanctions. It's true that I have made mistakes. But everyone made mistakes, and I have always tried to correct my mistakes when I realized that I had made some, or at least brought it to discussion. Blocks and sanctions are not meant to be punitive either, so I can't see how this proposal (especially given the bias of the user who originally proposed it) has any legitimacy as well. If we were to follow this line of logic, every one of the users who has been complaining/pushing for me to be "permanently banned" should be banned as well. Not only have I been harassed on the Syria module talk, but I have also been attacked by a couple of users on the talk page, as you can see here. Why should I be banned when I am editing out of good faith, have absolutely no intention of disrupting or vandalizing the map, and there are also a number of users I get along with quite well on the module/article in question. By the way, there are a number of users (including some of those pushing for this ban) who have committed much more "POV" edits than those I have allegedly or unintentionally done (some of the mhave also engaged in serious cases of edit warring in the past few months). The users that are biased against be are currently dominating this discussion, and they are ganging up om me in an attempt to kick me off the module; I feel like I am being harassed through this proposal. Also, this "good faith" editor 2601:C7:8301:8D74:1DB4:BFDC:1999:782E that Tradedia cited is actually a WP:SOCKPUPPET of User:Pbfreespace3, where there is an ongoing SPI investigation regarding his active user of sockpuppets to cirvumvent his block. The fact that such biased users were cited as "good examples," including a sockpuppet, astonishes me and makes me question the very purpose of this proposal. I strongly believe that the users pushing for this ban want to ban me out of annoyance and punitive motives, not because of any good faith. I have also noticed that the vast majority of users who commented in the recent ban proposal (including the original proposal on the Syria module talk) are the users who are biased against me, so please note this carefully. And pertaining to the Syria module talk, a user there said, "I wouldn't go so far as to ban him..." and another said that "I think that not need a ban for editor user:LightandDark2000 he sometimes made mistakes but he said that he will no longer break the rules so I think do not need to judge him so severely. Each of us can make a mistake but it is always necessary to give a chance to mend..." If we were to ban or block a user every time they made a mistake on these "hot/contested topic" areas, we would hardly have any editors left to edit articles in any of those errors. Therefore, in light of the circumstances and the people involved in this proposal, I believe that this ban proposal should be declined. LightandDark2000 (talk) 07:38, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I will respond to the main points of your defense paragraph:

• You say: “almost every single feed in the links provided are run/dominated by users that hate me.” I have counted a total of 16 different users on these feeds. So that’s a lot of “haters”! The relevant question is why a lot of these users “hate” you? Did it occur to you that this is because of your edits and attitude?
• You mention the important notion of assuming “good faith”. However after a while, the assumption of good faith can be completely obliterated by months and months of watching you make dishonest edit after dishonest edit.
• You invoke WP:PUNITIVE. However, you have to realize that the ban is not being requested to punish you, but rather to protect the map from your damaging edits that make it wrong and ruin its reputation, therefore spoiling the hard work of many honest editors.
• You claim that you have been “harassed” and “attacked”. However, users criticizing your edits should not be viewed as harassment or personal attacks. These users have nothing against you as a person. They have a problem with your edits. Instead of feeling like you have been victimized, you should instead ask yourself the question of why there is so much negativity around you. Opening a section discussing your bad edits and attitude is legitimate because they harm the encyclopedia, even if the venue should have been ANI instead of the module’s talk page.
• You mention that “there are a number of users (including some of those pushing for this ban) who have committed much more POV edits” than you. Other users behaving badly is not a valid excuse. If someone is breaking Misplaced Pages policy, then you should report them, as I have done myself this week, and this has resulted in blocks.
• Your bringing up accusations of sockpuppetry is really beside the point. Whether the IP is a sockpuppet or not is a matter to be determined at SPI. What is in focus here is your behavior and your general attitude in responding to valid questions. As your history of edits shows, you also respond the same way to users you do not accuse of sockpuppetry.
• You mention that “a user said, "I wouldn't go so far as to ban him..." However, this is the same user who subsequently opened this section here at ANI. So he must have changed his mind given your continued unresponsiveness… I think that your reaction to the latest section about you on the module’s talk page has been very disappointing to many users who feel that this is now a hopeless case. Tradedia 11:50, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I did not know that he was banned before for the same issue, which is why I did not support a ban. I still don't, I'd rather a moderator gives him a clear warning that if his behaviour persists, he'd see a topic ban or block. To be fair I was gonna bring up the vandalism counter myself, but after reading this discussion of the sockpuppetry investigation I realized it had a good explanation. The rest of the deletions do not, however. I brought this to ANI because I wasn't aware of what the protocol is for someone proposing a ban in a talk page, but it was clear there was a dispute and I figured an admin would be listened to by the user, since he doesn't listen to anyone else.

User:LightandDark2000 I keep repeating this every time, the biggest issue is your unresponsiveness to discussion. All of us regular contributors regularly engage each other in thorough discussion whenever a controversy emerges, you don't. I don't want to project onto your intentions, but your extensive use of Misplaced Pages policy links to defend yourself shows me that you are completely aware of what type of community Misplaced Pages is supposed to be, and this makes the assumption of good faith really hard to maintain. It's true users lose patience and regrettably resort to frustrated outbursts, but that does not erase the original criticism that you seek to ignore.

It is very hard to defend you considering this has been ongoing for a year. If you wish to avoid being blocked, as there appear to be growing calls for that, this is the right moment to show you understand what's wrong and pledge to right it. NightShadeAEB (talk) 13:21, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

And I must add, your claim that people are only criticizing you because they hate you personally is a sign of WP:CABALS and WP:MPOV. The ban proposals aren't to punish you, but to prevent disruptions to the map. You must focus on how disruptions can be prevented rather than on how it's unfair to you as a person. NightShadeAEB (talk) 13:37, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• Enough, I suggest that (although I will probably insert random horrible thing here just for being the one to suggest it) User:LightandDark2000 receive a indefinite ban from Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map, due to repeated irresponsible editing as described above. Happy_Attack_Dog (Throw Me a Bone) 16:32, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• Indefinite ban, for sure. BTW, he continues to misinterpret sources even today, like here, when he uses sentence "With all hilltops around the city captured" to justify changing village (not hill!), as far as 17 km from the city edge, to gov-controlled. If this isn't playing stupid (I don't know politically correct way to say this), I really don't know what is. Please stop this guy, he is really taking everyone's time and he should be dealt with like any other vandal. --Hogg 22 (talk) 12:24, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Please stop with the personal attacks. It's not civil, and it demonstrates poor character and an unwillingness to work with others. You are also confusing vandalism with good faith edits made in error. LightandDark2000 (talk) 08:55, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

How many times a person can ignore what he is told and do it his way before it's obvious he is playing stupid? 5 times? 10? 20? I think You passed all that limits. Assuming good faith doesn't mean letting one person making idiots of 10 others indefinitely. --Hogg 22 (talk) 09:05, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately despite all appeals User:LightandDark2000 continues to play lawyer and deliberately ignores the subject matter. He does not respond to criticisms while asking detractors to remain civil, he uses the lack of civility as a smokescreen to avoid having to listen to the discussion at all. This is extremely frustrating and is the cause of why too many editors lose their patience with you in the first place. Those that attack you could well be wrong, but your unresponsiveness is itself the original sin. NightShadeAEB (talk) 23:12, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for not addressing this earlier, but I'm quite busy as a person. This is the reason for my lack of participation in many discussions (some of which I regret). I probably could have done better, and I am sorry about by lack of input in many past discussion, but I do try my best to respond to discussions involving crucial issues. I will make more of an effort to engage in future discussions, where or when my attention is required. LightandDark2000 (talk) 02:10, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

So you are too "busy as a person" to "participate in discussions", yet you find the time to make 500 edits in the last 40 days? Tradedia 09:42, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

LightandDark2000 continues to disrupt Syria map page. More here: user: LightandDark2000, Qaryatan, Syria tell and al-Mihassah (permalink). Please, block him. --Hogg 22 (talk) 09:22, 20 April 2016 (UTC) P.S. There is more! Check the talk page with complaints. --Hogg 22 (talk) 09:38, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Is the ban being proposed a ban from the site, or a topic ban? --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 18:51, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

@Rubbish computer: What is being proposed is a ban from Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map. Tradedia 03:43, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Standard offer request for Mdrnpndr

Mdrnpndr (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)

• I am handling an unblock request and this user wishes to request the standard offer. I am deferring this to the community to decide. The message below was originally posted on their talk page and reposted here by me. At this point I am going to withhold my opinion, but I may express it later. HighInBC 16:51, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I have waited 6 months since I was originally blocked to make this standard offer request to give myself sufficient time to come to terms with the situation. I think that insufficient time away from Misplaced Pages may have been a factor in my previous relapses into edit warring. As for the matter at hand, I agree with the original declining administrator that my efforts in terms of dispute resolution and discussion in general were quite weak. If unblocked, my number one priority will be consensus building. I will focus a tremendous amount of effort on reaching out to all community members whom I have editing disputes with, even if their opinions are radically different from mine. I will not avoid discussion and will make sure that my voice is heard in accordance with Misplaced Pages policy, but I will respect community consensus once it exists. In either case, edit warring is a definite no-go zone, period.

I would now like to address some issues that an administrator brought up on my talk page. First of all, I am not under any sanctions other than the block itself. Second, I admit that my previous unblock (which, it stands to mention, happened about two years ago now) was as a second chance, but it was for a very specific issue that was only indirectly connected to my edit warring behaviour. More importantly, I followed through on the terms of my unblock that time, as I have taken great care since then to respect the desires of other users with regard to their talk pages. I plan to do the same here for edit warring in general, by respecting the desires of the community in regard to articles and similar pages. Finally, I would like to point out that, even though I have been indefinitely blocked before, I had never made a standard offer request until now. Mdrnpndr (talk) 16:00, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

So I'm the blocking admin, but I have no opinion, because I don't remember the situation (or your username, for that matter) even one bit. Just saying this lest people wonder what I think about the situation. For future reference, the most recent block entry had a rationale of Persistent tendentious editing; https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?diff=681944624. Nyttend (talk) 18:31, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

In hindsight I should have pinged you. I will remember next time. HighInBC 02:15, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

No problem. I only learnt this by accident: since "I have been indefinitely blocked before", I was curious to see the block log, so I went to it and was surprised to see my own username as the blocking admin. Nyttend (talk) 14:26, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, this is the thread/situation that resulted in the indef block. -- The Voidwalker 23:17, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I'm not expressing my opinion on whether this user should be unblocked, but if the user is unblocked, I strongly suggest placing a WP:1RR restriction on them for a period of time, with a swift return to an indefinite block if it is broken. I'm not opposed to giving another chance to someone with a long history of blocks for edit-warring, but only if such a restriction prevents wasted editor time down the road in the event that edit-warring persists. ~ Rob 02:25, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

• Note: Mdrnpndr has made a response here: . HighInBC 16:33, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support conditional on an indefinite 1RR restriction that can be appealed here after six months. Katie 17:28, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support unblock based on 1RR acceptance. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:10, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support subject to 1RR. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:05, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
• After thinking about this a while I have decided to support subject to 1RR. HighInBC 15:35, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
• Conditional Support support with the following caveats: (1) 1RR restriction; (2) General civility restriction ; restrictions to be indefinite but available for appeal here at WP:AN after 6 months. — xaosflux 01:07, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

SPI is backlogged

Can an admin please take a look at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/JShanley98? It's been open almost two weeks, and it's basically a WP:DUCK case. And, no, I didn't file it, but it's incredibly obvious. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:56, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Blocked the registered account, but the IP is a little stale so it's simply tagged. Katie 00:13, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks both for this. Lugnuts 16:22, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

• Can I hear it for the good folks working SPI? They have a complicated and ungrateful task, and deserves happy things like puppies and apple pie. Drmies (talk) 18:30, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

  Do we need more CheckUsers? I'm seeing regular backlogs at SPI and on UTRS and I think I maybe might be able to contribute. Katie 19:56, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Can more people apply to SPI? It seems that a small fraction of the 38 CheckUsers are working on SPI. KgosarMyth (talk) 20:19, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it is a very underserviced area of the site, sadly. But that's coming from a notorious SPI-stalker like me. There is no need to really apply; you can help there regardless of whether you are a Checkuser or Admin (I'm neither, heh), or you could consider becoming a trainee clerk in the future. GAB 20:21, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

We don't need more Checkusers, we need more willing admins and Clerks to review and act on the open reports. There are only three Checkuser-endorsed reports open at the moment, every single other entry is awaiting review from willing participants. Another option is to clone Vanjagenije, though I'm not sure he would be open to the suggestion.--Jezebel's Ponyo 19:42, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

@Ponyo: Better idea would be to divide me in two, that would also help me with my weight problem. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:46, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

You could divide me in four to build a quartet of reasonably-healthy men, but they'd probably be slackers just like me. Sorry I'm not helping out more, Vanja. We love ya! <3 ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:12, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I've long proposed splitting Bbb23. Even at 11.5 they'd be great. Ponyo, well, there's only one Ponyo. Drmies (talk) 20:16, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

There is a clerk training in progress: December 2015 clerk training. It has been idle for some time. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:51, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Another that needs attention

If an administrator could review Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Никита-Родин-2002, it would be appreciated. The length of the report isn't due to contention; it's because the master is continuing to move on to more and more socks. Having the existing ones blocked and tagged (all of which are very obvious) would be helpful. ~ Rob 21:33, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

The named accounts have all been blocked and tagged, and I tagged the IPs as suspected socks. Nothing more to do. If/when it reoccurs, open a new one. :-) Katie 02:15, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Topic ban appeal

section originally titled "Standard offer request", retitled by Salvidrim! on 17:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC).

I typically spend about 1,000 hours a year working on Misplaced Pages. I started out mostly working on energy related topics, but then got interested in becoming an admin and created this alternate username for that purpose, plus for other reasons. While I apparently disagreed with some on some issues that is no way to resolve disputes, but while blocked I simply looked for something else to do and found a home in creating and translating SVGs, which occupies most of my time now (so far I have created over 1000 images, with one that has over 7500 translations). I qualify for the standard offer because I meet all the criteria - over six months, active in another project, never violated the block. In the meantime I made a list of over 250 edits I found that needed to be made, and have worked my way through about 1/3 of them and will get to the rest as soon as I can, but the standard offer will help greatly because there are some edits that the restrictions on my account prevent me from doing. I will actually only be making a few edits each week here (after the backlog is cleared), as there is a backlog of over 6000 SVGs to create and over 6000 that need translations. Each restriction means only one thing - an edit does not get done that would help the project. Apteva (talk) 16:09, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

• You are not actually blocked? Or is this an appeal of a restriction you are under? Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:19, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
• Do you mean you want your other account unblocked and/or that you want to be allowed to edit from other accounts? "Per the consensus at the discussion at WP:AN, you are restricted to editing solely from the Apteva account from now on." That restriction was placed in Jan 2013. Why should it be lifted? Fences&Windows 17:07, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
• Current restrictions (per WP:EDR):

1. Apteva is topic banned indefinitely from modifying or discussing the use of dashes, hyphens, or similar types of punctuation, broadly construed, including but not limited to at the manual of style and any requested move discussion, and from advocating against the MOS being applicable to article titles
2. Apteva is topic banned from proposing the removal of his existing restrictions, at any Misplaced Pages venue, until 31st January 2014, and is limited to one appeal every six months after that.

They are currently appealable. Technically only the first once is relevant (as the second one becomes inapplicable if there are no existing sanctions). This isn't really a "WP:STANDARDOFFER" both more a simple topic ban appeal. I've (boldly) retitled this section as such. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

• Apteva, can you give one or more example of "edits that the restrictions on {your} account prevent {you} from doing"? Can you provide specific examples of constructive work on other projects in the topic of dashes/hyphens/etc.? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, the one that I came across the other day is I was updating the SEGS page, and I noticed that there were two types of dashes used and I wanted to consolidate those to the endash and could not. So the best I could do is use the correct one in the section that I added. Another example is if I take a photograph of a location that would identify me, I can not use or add it to a page without revealing my real world location. As such I need to be able to use other account names. We are not talking about a lot of edits, maybe a few a year I would guess. The standard offer removes all restrictions. While I am unblocked, which is hugely beneficial, what I really need is a removal of all restrictions, so that I can contribute fully to the project, without having one hand tied behind my back for reasons that no longer exist. This was a fun file that I fixed. It used both commas and periods for a decimal place and two hyphens and two endashes. Or something. I did not check to see if they were really hyphens (they are). I have seen a file named using a minus sign for a hyphen. Apteva (talk) 01:14, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support Seems to have a clue now. Katie 03:15, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Template misused in Titles alert—patrol+Bot+Solution needed

Posting this here as the issue needs a long term solution, then bot cleanup to implement. re: This edit & action - Note the subtext comment explaining the problem. (Duplicated here for complete picture, emphasis added):

PROBLEM... Template NOT to be used in Lead... see {{IPAc-en/doc}} page, but needs be avoided in first paras of articles. {{IPAc-en|m|ə|n|ˈ|r|oʊ}}; NOTE, mouse-over hoover on List of Presidents of the United States showed most of the first ten also NOT having the template. Perhaps subst'ing the output will be acceptable, suspect the issue is noprint element or other incompatible generated script control element

• Template:IPAc-en(edit talk links history)

1. Suspect the problem is not to general reader
   1. but only affects those of us which have script assisted pre-peak over wikilinks enabled in our .CSS file, which is to say most computer savvy veteran editors
   2. but... at this point: that is only a hypothesis and guess!
2. That means the scope and exact nature of the problem needs be revealed before any general solution can be adopted... hence this body is best suited to resolve speedily.
3. Problem is use of a template in Lead para, which probably has little use outside leads: but for which the template usage /doc page WARNS PROMINENTLY to NOT use it in leads.
4. I saw the problem by hoovering over the link to President James Monroe. I saw similar malformed... Someone after Jackson.
   1. The hoover issue manifests on these two pages:
      1. James Buchanan
      2. Abraham Lincoln... skipping most back to Washington.
   2. Have to suspect, to believe even, given the format observed there are thousands of biographies and history articles that may be affected; these are likely to use the pronunciation-date range format as MOS preferences.
   3. obviously parsing the 'whatlinkshere' manually will show the same issue I observed.
5. The real issue is resolving how speedily a resolution of this problem is needed, how widespread and problematic, and how it's to be resolved.
   1. If, as I suspect the issue only appears to those of us hoovering a link, IMHO, we can all just learn to live with it, and it's use in the lead can be tolerated; hence the template warning should be altered a bit.
   2. If, as is possible, this also has issues in being printed, or Iphones or other page rendering issues to the general public, then the matter becomes far more urgent.

Need I say more! I leave the matter in your hands. // FrankB 17:44, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

This is a technical problem. Kaldari added that notice in the doc only recently, without explanation, so it is best to ask him. For me, I can see no fault in its rendering on the page itself. The only problem I see is that the IPA rendering is left blank in Popups. It affects any language, and IPA pronounciations are regularly, if not mostly, used in the lead. If anything, the issue should be brought up there. But it is no reason to remove any IPA template from the lead in any articles. Therefor, I will put it back and remove the notice. Popups is not a core part of the software, threfor never a reason to remove any templates from articles. -- ] {{talk}} 18:04, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

@Edokter and Fabartus: The notice I added in the docs says "Per WP:LEAD, do not use this template in the lead section for common English words." In other words, don't add a pronunciation for words like Monday, pub, bean, rose, pencil, mind, bus, Earth, etc. (all of which until recently included pronunciations). My note had nothing to do with technical issues, only MOS guidelines. Kaldari (talk) 18:39, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, I believe all parenthetical phrases are stripped from pop-ups and search snippets, but that should not affect use of the IPAc-en template. Kaldari (talk) 18:45, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Ah, dude! Want to explain how date ranges in the two president examples I linked above ARE NOT parenthetical expressions?
In any case, if this is only an editor popup, I have no beef with it. Otherwise the two leading whitespaces and semicolon left dangling after the '(' are nearly as objectionable as a hanging chad to a die-hard Democrat. // FrankB 17:19, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Neve-selbert.

I'm requesting that Neve-selbert's indef block be reduced to a 1-month block. The individual hadn't vandalized articles or used sock-puppets & has promised to stay away from the List of state leaders in Year articles & the Israel/Palestine topic. GoodDay (talk) 18:37, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

• Somewhat on the fence here Having interacted with Neve-selbert somewhat, I can only say they have a great deal of heart in contributing to the project, which is commendable and with all the good faith in the world, I'd be supportive of the reduction. However, their condition also leads to tricky situations, such as the one that got them blocked. There's nothing to say that the same situation that occurred on the List of State Leaders won't happen somewhere else, simply because there is no way of telling what their compulsion would latch on to. The biggest question would be how those situations would be dealt with? They obviously can't be article banned one at a time whenever their compulsiveness kicks in. Blackmane (talk) 15:31, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Request Admin Attention at Template:Anarchism sidebar and Template talk:Anarchism sidebar

This is a request for an administrator to watchlist and watch the template and template talk pages, Template:Anarchism sidebar and Template talk:Anarchism sidebar. There has been edit-warring and name-calling over the inclusion of Anarcho-capitalism in the template. One editor referred to the content position with which they disagree as "vandalism" in an edit summary (and the accusation of vandalism to "win" a content dispute is a personal attack). Another editor referred to an editor’s "hate-filled vendetta" (but denies that that was a personal attack). I am not naming the two editors here, but I am notifying them.

An attempt was made to resolve the issue at the dispute resolution noticeboard, but the moderator (in my opinion, reasonably) failed the discussion both because of the personal attacks and the non-existence of any compromise position. The moderator recommended that a Request for Comments be used. A Request for Comments has now been posted, and should be allowed to run for 30 days. I don’t think that any administrative action is needed as long as the RFC is able to run an orderly course, but I do think that administrative watching is the best way to ensure that the RFC runs an orderly course and that there is no further name-calling. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:31, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

 Administrator note Page protection has been applied to the template due to the edit warring. I pinged in admin User:Jackmcbarn that was previously involved to the conversation at Template_talk:Anarchism_sidebar#Page_Protection. — xaosflux 02:28, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

So last time this was protected was November 2014 to March 2015. When I unprotected it then, I warned Knight of BAAWA, Eduen, and Stamboliyski that if the edit warring started up again and any of them were involved, it would be stopped with blocks rather than protection. In August 2015, Eduen and Knight of BAAWA started edit-warring there again, and true to my word, I blocked both of them. And now I see Knight of BAAWA is once again in the middle of an edit war on that same template. Facepalm. Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:52, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Question about a prolific, problematic IP

I'm not sure where else to ask this so figured I'd ask here. By chance I came across this IP address , and as far as I can see, few to none of the edits it has made have been beneficial. Historically, when it DOES make useful edits, they are interspersed with sneaky vandalism. It stops for a month or two, then starts up again. The talk page is basically a notice farm and the one existing archive is yet another, larger warning farm. In 2006, an administrator tagged it as a likely sock of someone who had apparently solicited child porn.

My question is: is there a process in place by which we can long-term block this IP? It appears static, likely a proxy server for a corporation. I see a ridiculously extensive history of vandalism and problems and little to indicate it is at all beneficial to let it go on editing. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 03:56, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

If, as you say, it makes useful edits once in a while, and it is likely a proxy server for a corporation, then blocking it would probably mean blocking a corporation with a good editor in it. This fact needs to be kept in mind. That having been said, admins are entitled to block any disruptive IP n sight, with escalating blocks. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:37, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Lilith (Novel) Odd Heading

So, this is a really weird thing, and this might not even be the right place.

When I go to Misplaced Pages (just the initial page at wikipedia.org) and type in "Lilith (n" I get a hit for "Lilith (Novel)" which is all well and good. But rather than saying "Lilith (Novel) by George MacDonald 1895" or whatever, it says "Lilith (Novel) by George Trilirilarlin".

This is fairly ridiculous. Now, I realize this is a very small thing, but what the heck and why is that a thing at all?

Thanks, PiousCorn (talk) 04:32, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

P.S. If anyone doubts this, I encourage them to try it themselves, or send me a message and I will show a screenshot of it, but it's very much a consistent thing.

It doesn't happen for me. I just see "Lilith (novel)" showing up in the search, and when I select it I see an article with that exact title which starts "Lilith is a fantasy novel written by Scottish writer George MacDonald". Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:22, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Fair, Boing! said Zebedee but here is a screenshot of what I see. Thanks, PiousCorn (talk) 06:41, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

And I reset my browser memory, etc etc, no, it's still there. (Weird that a random novel suggested by my brother would lead me down this path.) PiousCorn (talk) 06:47, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

It was pulling bad data from please-vandalize-me.org. —Cryptic 07:01, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Cryptic Thanks so much, glad it's something that's known and can be (and has been) resolved. PiousCorn (talk) 07:04, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, now when I look it says "1895 novel by George MacDonald, 1895 novel by George MacDonald." (ie twice). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:01, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring at Nuts Entertainment

I bumped into Nuts Entertainment during vandalism patrol. There seems to be some extended, repeated edit warring between a registered user User:WayKurat and an IP user hopping on various IP addresses starting with 49.145.xxx.xxx. User:49.145.182.184 has already been blocked for edit warring, but he seems to not have gotten it. I have just warned WayKurat for edit warring, but I understand that his recent edits have not broken 3RR, although older edits have broken 3RR. Short of making a formal WP:ANEW report, I would like to ask for second opinion on the best action to be taken to prevent further edit warring on the page, especially since the IP user is hopping addresses. Optakeover 09:36, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

@Optakeover: FYI, the IP hopping anon user you mentioned here that kept on reverting edits on the Nuts Entertainment article has been involved adding unnecessary and hoax information to the Kalyeserye and List of Kalyeserye episodes articles. Both articles were semi-protected because of this anon on different occasions. Since the anon cannot edit both articles anymore, he/she focused on other articles that are connected to Kalyeserye. For example: he/she edits the Nuts Entertainment article because one of the characters there (Mike "Pekto" Nacua) made an appearance to Kalyeserye. If his edits were reverted, he will revert it back. Here are some instances: 1, 2, 3, 4. Please take note that no matter how we explain to this anon his edits, he just reverts it back and ignores our notices. -WayKurat (talk) 10:10, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Admins disagreeing on unblock

And I'm one of them, kind-of.

Some days ago, I blocked Hijiri88 with a rationale of WP:BATTLEGROUND (no link, but a link was present in his previous block, so presumably he was familiar with it) because of this edit. It's a two-week block. Hijiri proceeded to request unblock, but his request was declined by HighInBC with statements such as Since you don't seem to realize how this was inappropriate I don't think an unblock would make sense. Yesterday, TParis asked me to unblock, a request that I was inclined to grant (I don't want to reject this kind of request from another admin) until I saw the unblock request and its rejection, but I hesitate unilaterally to unblock someone after learning that another admin is so firmly opposed to unblock.

So basically, you have HighInBC strongly opposed to unblock, TParis requesting unblock, and me in the middle, not quite sure what to do. Sounds like a perfect "ask the community" situation. Unblock? Modify the block? Leave the block unchanged? Your opinions would be appreciated. Nyttend (talk) 11:55, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Call a compromise and reduce it to a one week block including time served. Blackmane (talk) 12:20, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

(ec) I would say since after your block an unblock was rejected by another admin, you can not unilaterally unblock them. I would just leave the matter to the fourth admin (possibly by asking the user to file another unblock request).--Ymblanter (talk) 12:21, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

• If this is a request for feedback on how to handle things in general, I'd say a reasonable approach is (a) if blocking admin is in favor of unblock, they break the tie, and (b) if blocking admin is unsure or against unblock, then seek consensus here.

If this is actually a request for such a consensus here, then my opinion hinges on whether Hijiri has been part of the feuding that recently led to my blocking MaranoFan and Calvin999 for 1 month. If so, then I strongly favor leaving it in place, as it is already half of the duration I'd have used. If it is not, then I have no opinion. I know it involves Calvin999, but I don't know if it's related to the wider conflct. I don't have time to research, so I'll hope/assume that someone will know and interpret this accordingly. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:12, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Floquenbeam, the edit I linked above as the basis for the block (another copy of that link) was a comment at one user's talk page, which created a new section with the title of ] is blocked for battleground behaviour. Nyttend (talk) 17:36, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I have no objection if another admin comes to another conclusion regarding the unblock request. I have no strong feelings on the matter. My unblock review was part of me going through the unblock queue and was based on my analysis of the quality of the block and its ongoing preventative nature. If Nyttend or TParis(or anyone else) feels that the block has served its purpose then I have no intention of standing in their way. Thank you for consulting me. HighInBC 16:23, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

• I've no doubt the block was warranted. Grave dancing is just going to sour the situation worse when Calvin999 returns. But this comment pretty much puts the preventative issue to rest. Hijiri88 seems to appear to agree that it's only going to sully the situation and will not engage in further grave dancing.--v/r - TP 17:36, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't know about Hijiri88's participation but both Calvin and MF are asking for an IBan but I know that admins are leery of imposing them because they can be gamed. When these editors get unblocked or their blocks expire, they will all have to increase their level of restraint. For some reason, it seems like a herculean task for some editors to just ignore each other. I hope this situation has a more positive outcome. Liz 21:47, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

• Note This block has since been reversed. Everyone involved with the block and reviews seems to be in agreement. Unless anyone has other concerns about this I think it can be closed. HighInBC 16:26, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Create an unsubmitted article

IP 123.24.194.104 boasts, in his talk page under topic: 2016, being able to create and poste a new article named "Pleiku Campaign" without having to go through the process of submission and approval by just editing the #REDIRECT =>Battle of Ia Drang page like here .Tnguyen4321 (talk) 21:12, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

This is a stealth way of getting around the New Page Patrol. But, as for this page, it has been reverted back to a redirect. Liz 21:42, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't see anything indicating he did that to circumvent patrolling. He certainly hasn't bragged about it on his talk page. Assume good faith. He could have just seen an article that he felt needed creating and created it. There is no submission/approval process to create articles. WP:AFC is optional. ~ Rob 01:28, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Please help

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

Could someone please paste importScript('User:Mr.Z-man/badimages.js'); into (Redacted)/monobook.js. Thanks for your help! :-)-- ((Redacted)) 10:48, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

In order for you to be able to utilize custom JavaScript code, you need to create an account and move the code into the .js page under your new account. IP users do not have an editable monobook codespace like accounts do, and even if they did... that area is not editable by any users or accounts other than yourself. ~Oshwah~ 10:52, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I do have an account, but I have found that I am unable to edit that page either though here. I do not want these images to be viewable though my IP. Please help! Thank you. --LL212W (talk) 10:56, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, unregistered contributors cannot use scripts (I know, I tried). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:22, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

It is for security reasons. Imagine someone putting hostile javascript in the script page of a popular shared IP. HighInBC 18:13, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Requested moves backlogged

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

Misplaced Pages:Requested moves heavily backlogged. Baking Soda (talk) 10:57, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration motion restricting Gamaliel

Per his request, communicated off-wiki to the Committee, Gamaliel is indefinitely restricted from taking any action to enforce any arbitration decision within the GamerGate topic, broadly construed. Any violation of this motion must be reported to WP:ARCA. He may appeal this decision after 12 months to the Arbitration Committee.

Support: Doug Weller, Courcelles, Opabinia regalis, Drmies, DGG, Kelapstick

Oppose: Salvio giuliano, Casliber, Callanecc, Guerillero

Recuse: Gamaliel, GorillaWarfare, Keilana, Kirill Lokshin

For the Arbitration Committee, Liz 17:05, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration motion restricting Gamaliel

Is this the right place to say there seems to be a gap in the archive for the page Talk:Heat?

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

There seems to be a big gap in the archives for the page Talk:Heat. Is this the right place to ask about that?Chjoaygame (talk)

Looking at the history of the talk page in this time gap, the only difference between the talk page at the end of December 2015 and the version at the beginning f April 206 is the removal of a single section; this corresponds to this edit, which is archiving that section. This would explain the gap. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:19, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for this. When I look at the top parts of the page Talk:Heat I see only archives up to archive 15. I now see that you are right that looking on the archive pages one is guided to the later archives. Should the top of the main talk page show all those?Chjoaygame (talk) 18:32, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

@Chjoaygame: You can edit Talk:Heat to include the new links, it is not protected. — xaosflux 20:43, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok, thank you.Chjoaygame (talk) 23:36, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

BLP nightmare needs attention

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

See Clinton donors in the Panama Papers and related pages. It's up for deletion but I really don't think this guilt by association attack page should be up and running for another two days (or even longer).--TMCk (talk) 21:16, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I am afraid closing it now for any admin would be suicidal.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:32, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

This is the deletion discussion. I considered a snow close but I decided the discussion did not warrant it. Let it run for two more days; I think the result will be clear enough. --MelanieN (talk) 21:34, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

With 5 kees and 15 deletes it is not a snow keep by my standards, given that the keep arguments have been provided.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:40, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

That was my conclusion also. --MelanieN (talk) 21:43, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Always nice to see how BLP policy is not negotiable.--TMCk (talk) 21:50, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

It's a SNOW by BLP standards. And there's really only 3 keep votes. The other two are WP:OTHERSTUFF (by an IP) and "me too!". And it's 17 deletes now.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:21, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Need to wait for some admin who is not afraid to uphold BLP policy, one of the very reasons they've been trusted with the tools.--TMCk (talk) 23:21, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

(ec)You go, girl. We got you covert.--TMCk (talk) 23:27, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Involved block and revdel

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

Just a quick note for transparency that, despite considering myself WP:INVOLVED, I made an indefinite block and revision deletion for this edit as a serious BLP violation. CIreland (talk) 01:03, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Good block, the edit has been suppressed also. -- GB fan 01:17, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

3 editors edit warring on my talk page

Three editors are edit warring with me on my own talk page. User:Clubjustin4, User:JWNoctis and User:Curly_Turkey. I told Curley Turkey three times not to edit my talk page and an admin told them not to do so as well, yet here they are edit warring to restore their old comments.

Talk page.

I'm giving notice at their talk pages now. UPDATE: all three editors have been notified at their talk pages.

2602:30A:C06E:EDC0:F473:80F:6A73:9F72 (talk) 05:39, 2 May 2016 (UTC) You have been blocked. The only one 3rring is you. Throw in some block evasion for talk page access revoked please. Clubjustin (talk) 05:42, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

It was a 48 hour block and it has expired. I'm not evading anything. 2602:30A:C06E:EDC0:F473:80F:6A73:9F72 (talk) 05:43, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Clubjustin4 has been notified of this report, responded here and has now intensified the edit warring. Somebody please put a stop to this. 2602:30A:C06E:EDC0:F473:80F:6A73:9F72 (talk) 05:48, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Again, editing others' comments and warnings for purposes other than archiving just because you can is not good form, at the very least. You may also wish to get yourself an actual account, and may that hold your action more accountable. JWNoctis 05:51, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, did you cite a policy? I'm not seeing one. Sounds like a bunch of unsolicited opinion. That's not a justification for editing my talk page. Nor edit warring once it's clear your edits are unwanted. 2602:30A:C06E:EDC0:F473:80F:6A73:9F72 (talk) 05:53, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

You delete messages on the reason 'trolling' yet you refer to 'trolling' as a personal attack. What? Clubjustin (talk) 06:33, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

The editor edited their page with an alternate account after having thier talk page access blocked. The editor has actually used quite a few different IP accounts (both IPv4 and IPv6) to avoid the blocks they've been given. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:37, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

• I blocked the IP for 60 h per WP:NOTTHERE. If someone can apply a range block, this would be useful.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:59, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

At this point, we need to block both IPV4 &6 range of IP'S. Clubjustin (talk) 07:08, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Rangeblocked 2602:301:C063:EDC0::/64 for 60 hours (reset Ymblanter's block) for block evasion. If you'll list the IPv4 addresses, I'll investigate. Katie 16:27, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Article redirected without consensus

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

The article on Spy-Fi was nominated for deletion despite having up to ten refs. The result of the discussion was no consensus and now user:Betty Logan redirected without discussion. There are a number of editors still working on the article and an elaboration weather to split sections. I don't know how to bring it back, but it was not done without proper discussion. I don't know how to undo this move. It seems only an admin can do it. Please help undo it. That article is still being worked on by multiple editors and it was moved without any explanation.--Taeyebaar (talk) 23:00, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

• I moved the article because the term "spy-fi" has two distinct definitions: for many years it has denoted "spy fiction" in the publishing industry, but in the last decade the term has been coined to denote a sub-genre of spy-fiction and science-fiction. With this edit Taeyebaar made it clear that he intends the article to focus exclusively on the sub-genre so I disambiguated the article to make it clear which definition the article covers. Betty Logan (talk) 23:33, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Curious about pending changes on talk pages

I know it's not for talk pages, and I don't plan on using it there. I was just wondering if it is technically possible for an admin to do so. PC isn't one of the options on the protection screen for talk pages, just edit and move protection. I'd think that a dev would be able to do this without much trouble, but is there any sort of workaround that would allow an admin to add pending changes to a talk page? --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:08, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Our current configuration does not support this, see Special:StablePages for the combinations that are supported. I don't see a reason it could not be enabled project wide for other namespaces if we had community consensus for it. — xaosflux 02:24, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

mw:Extension:FlaggedRevs#Basic_settings shows that $wgFlaggedRevsNamespaces could be updated to include other namespaces, this would be project-wide. — xaosflux 02:30, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

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

Sorry to be so bold as to delete another person's post, but this is very serious. This edit needs to be blocked out. Whatever your feelings towards Alansohn, NO ONE should have their real identity "outed" on Misplaced Pages. This can be dealt with via email. Can an admin please remove this? This is serious. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:11, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

You should recommend as well, the deleted post be strickend from this page's 'history'. GoodDay (talk) 23:37, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Review of ANI close

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

Discussion

I am asking for a review of the ANI close here. The main issue is a specific reading of the rev-del policy by the closer: that the views of the non-admins are irrelevant in considering whether there is a consensus for a rev-del, even when the rev-deled text is available for all to read. This is in contrast to clear direction in WP:REVDEL: Material must be grossly offensive, with little likelihood of significant dissent about its removal. Otherwise it should not be removed. Clearly the views of non-admins can indicate dissent, at the very least. It seems to me that the reading is contrary to the spirit, and quite possibly the letter of the policy.

Discussion with the closer here (permalink). Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 00:53, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Survey

• Overturn close: Per my statement above. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 01:05, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
• Kingsindian (talk · contribs) is intentionally cherry picking the policy. I've pointed it out twice that the policy says:
  • "RevisionDelete allows selective redaction of posts and log entries by administrators, as well as peer review by any administrator of the correct use of the tool."
  • "They are subject to review by other administrators (who can see redacted material), and to reversal upon clear, wider consensus."
• I can only suspect that the omission of these quotes by Kingindian, after being pointed to those lines twice, is an intentional omission to mislead. I agree that when the material is available on the internet, that review should be possible by editors as well and that an RFC be started. BU_Rob13 (talk · contribs) was kind enough to start one here. At this point, I think Kingsindian needs to WP:DROPTHESTICK.--v/r - TP 01:06, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
• Close this as WP:FORUMSHOP. I started an RfC to address the questions surrounding this closure. I heavily disagree with the close because I believe the section of the policy quoted by Kingsindian above implies that no consensus should default to "don't delete", but it's improper to have two discussions running at the same time on the same question. It's much better to address this question more generally with an RfC, because I can absolutely see where TParis is coming from. The policy is not at all clear on this issue. ~ Rob 01:09, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: There is no forum shopping. The RfC you opened is whether the RevDel policy should be changed. This is whether the RevDel policy, as written, was correctly applied. I pointed out this on TParis' talk page. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 01:18, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Brianpeppers123456

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

I'm trying to post warnings to Brianpeppers123456 but it's coming up as a permission error/blacklisted page. Need an admin to assist, though given this user's early edits, I suspect their time here may be limited. Valenciano (talk) 09:31, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked for inappropriate username and vandalism. CIreland (talk) 09:51, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Motion: Oversight block appeals (Oversight-l)

Original discussion

For this motion there are 14 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Appeals of blocks that have been marked by an oversighter as oversight blocks should be sent to the oversight team via email (Oversight-llists.wikimedia.org) to be decided by the English Misplaced Pages oversighters, or to the Arbitration Committee. Blocks may still be marked by the blocking oversighter as appealable only to the Arbitration Committee, per the 2010 statement, in which case appeals must only be directed to the Arbitration Committee.

Enacted - Miniapolis 15:58, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Motion: Oversight block appeals (Oversight-l)

For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 16:49, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

• I really can't make heads or tails of this announcement. I have absolutely no idea what this means and it seems absurdly bureaucratic. New England Cop (talk) 06:45, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

  If a block is designated as an Oversight block in the block message, it is only appealable to the Oversight team or the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, as circumstances permit, an Oversight team member may designate a block as only appealable to the Arbitration Committee. Nakon 06:57, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Your opinion please

Wasickta has filed a COI complaint against Alansohn on COIN, Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Local Politician Shaping Views Using Misplaced Pages: Conflict Of Interest. I looked into some of the evidence and found nothing there to support the claims. Whatever the merits of that complaint are, Wasickta is, I think, taking my statements as a reason to start disrupting some stuff; within an hour of my first post they thought it a good idea to post some sort of protest statement on the talk page of a VOA account I blocked. This is highly unbecoming and disruptive and I would like a second, third, etc. opinion. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 17:03, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes that is a disruptive edit and inappropriate. This is a newish user; per their edit count their account has been open less than 1 year and they have about 200 edits. Their filings at AN and then at COIN were... ineptly done - too much drama and not nearly enough evidence. The false accusations of OUTING confused things. When they finally came back and presented evidence it was again overly dramatic and weak, and was reacted to negatively. W's reactions to that went from kind of sarcasm here to explicit sarcasm that started to personalize this here; which was followed in time by the wierd edit Drmies brings above, followed by this which really does make it personal.

COI is hard to deal with and there are lots of ways to go wrong. W has gone wrong in almost all of them (no real evidence, too much emotion, too personalized, threatening to go the papers, some personal attack, and doing more of the same in reaction to the negative reactions they received, including the posting at Benjamin02's page that is the specific subject of this posting). That is not terrible if they were to handle it gracefully and learn. So let's see what happens.

Wasickta, do you see that you have handled this badly and that whatever you were doing at Benjamin02's was a bad thing? Please think carefully before responding. Jytdog (talk) 19:51, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I was upset and it was very irrational/incorrect thing to do. I have retracted the comment since. Wasickta (talk) 19:54, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Wasickta adding an apology to Drmies wouldn't hurt (Drmies is one of the best here, actually. Saucy which can be confusing, but on the money). But don't apologize if you don't mean it. Jytdog (talk) 20:25, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Drmies are you satisfied? Jytdog (talk) 20:25, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

As you pointed out, I'm only in it for the money, and a $100 bill (or "Benny") will go a long way. What I care about is that Wasickta knows this was out of line and won't do it again--and that Wasickta will ponder the COI accusations they made and the evidence they presented. I don't need an apology, I just want a more positive, productive colleague on Misplaced Pages. And a nap, which went totally by the wayside today. (BTW, that editor I blocked, the rev/deleted edits had nothing to do with anything here--just vandalism and someone saying disgusting things about a classmate or so.) Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:36, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Topic ban requested

At 28 april 2016, Robertinventor (signing as "Robert Walker") requested a citation in the lead of Four Noble Truths. Since then, eleven (!) citations have been given (note 2 in the lead); nevertheless, Robert Walker has filled Talk:Four Noble Truths with walls of texts "arguing" that the four truths are not about ending rebirth. It's a repetition of 2015. When pinged, Drmies adviced to bring this issue here, which Robert McClenon endorsed, so here we are: I'd like to propose a topic-ban for Robert Walker on Four Noble Truths, for WP:DISRUPTIVE by posting WP:WALLSOFTEXT and WP:DONTGETIT by ignoring the honouring of his request for citations. Pinging John Carter and User:Ms Sarah Welch, since they supported "to keep this editor just away from this page" (bottom of the list with differences). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:25, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support, as nominee. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:25, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose Please, admins, when evaluating this, note that
  1. When I do longer posts I collapse parts of them so readers can skip easily.
  2. Please don't judge the number of posts I do from the talk page edit history. I tend to repeat myself and make mistakes, typing quickly. Also not good at spotting those mistakes when the words first appear on the page. Most of the edits in the history are to do with fixing these issues. Please instead look at the talk page itself.
  3. I am not editing the page itself (except for one edit to add a citation needed tag some time back - when the tag was removed I never tried again). This action would silence my voice in debates on the talk page.
  
  All my posts are to the point, respectful and done with the intention of improving wikipedia.
  
  Please also note the context - this action was brought the day after I got a second Oppose vote in the RfC on use of redeath in the article. See RfC on use of the word "redeath" in the article and lede for Four Noble Truths. Also notice that yesterday he collapsed the entire section of supplementary material for my oppose vote, mid conversation. He hasn't explained why he did this.Robert Walker (talk) 07:32, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Comment - I was so kind not to mention WP:TENDENTIOUS, but the post above illustrates that point as well: I was about to close that RfC on "redeath" after I removed this word from the lead, and consolidated the refs & notes, in response to user RD64. Surprisingly, user RD64 concluded he preferred to keep the word, after having read my comments. So, I reinserted the term one time, and kept the RfC open. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:08, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

In that case also - I was the one who opened it, and you were going to close it as a result of the first comment response by a disinterested party in the RfC. I was asleep at the time and could have woken up to find my RfC closed already.

I want to hear the full spectrum of views on the matter. We haven't yet had any comments by experts in the early Buddhist texts. The RfC is not just to achieve a "yes / no answer"; it is to further understanding and help guide future edits of the article. I don't want to discuss the debate itself here, just user behaviour so won't go into intricacies of our discussion. Robert Walker (talk) 10:25, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, I didn't close it, did I, so what's the problem here? And I was about to remove all the uses of the word "redeath" in the lead, as you begged for - and you still find fault with it... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:12, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not aiming for a "win", but for understanding :). It is just luck that you didn't close it. And your behaviour on the article is erratic. First arguing strongly for this term, then you remove this term from the article, then add it back again a short while later, all based on responses of the first disinterested person to enter the debate on the first day of the RfC. I'd think we need to find out more on this topic for the article, hence the RfC. Robert Walker (talk) 11:22, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support, conditionally. Freedom to express is a precious thing. It is at the foundation of[REDACTED] policies and admin-triggered corrective measures. I hesitate on indef, complete topic ban on @Robert Walker. Yet, something ought to be done, given @Robert Walker has repeatedly violated WP:FORUM / WP:TPNO guideline on how to use article's talk page. He has posted hundreds of edits, with walls of post, within a few days on Talk:Four Noble Truths. The posts mostly keep recycling the same non-RS sourced stuff. This is not productive, it is counter-productive. Imagine a hotline for medical services or fire service, which receives 50 calls a day, 7 days a week from the same caller, repeating the same call, in different words, not stopping, despite no fire nor emergency. Such a caller will invite admin/disciplinary action. @Robert Walker has done the same, and continues. We can ignore the walls of post, just like a fire station can ignore all phone rings. But is that proper? The 4NT article has many watchers, is a high traffic article, and has the kind of participation from all sides that will likely keep the article in good shape. Further[REDACTED] is not a fire station, and there are no emergencies here. So here is what I propose: Limited ban: limit 3 edits per day for @Robert Walker on the talk page; or one month topic ban, or whatever keeps the larger interest of the project, but helps reduce or stop @Robert Walker's behavior, which is to ignore WP:RS and wikipedia's content policies, and keep repeating what is in the non-WP:RS sources. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:49, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Please see WP:RS and redeath for my comment on this idea that all WP:RS sources use this term. Harvey uses the word redeath once, and death 161 times in a 552 page book. The other WP:RS sources I list there never use it. Robert Walker (talk) 15:13, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• If Robert Walker would only be more sparing with words and combine edits...but then still, it's a complete overdose of posts, well past, in my opinion, the point of disruption. So yes, I support this narrow topic ban too. Drmies (talk) 15:43, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I have just edited those posts above to remove repetition, sorry for being wordy in my replies. I do work very very hard on this, to reduce the word count. Most of my edits in the edit history of the talk pages are to do with this. Robert Walker (talk) 16:17, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support Ms Sarah Welch's conditions as a compromise in the right direction, since the status quo is untenable. Miniapolis 22:21, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - Since I keep getting pinged about these Buddhist controversies, I will comment. The timing of this request is unfortunate, since the subject editor has now filed a real RFC, which is more constructive than his previous conduct in continuing to go on and one. However, looking over the recent history, he is still going on and on. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:21, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - The subject editor says that one of the reasons that he makes so many posts is that he has to go back and correct. I see that is true. At the same time, I see that he never marks those corrections as minor edits, but I also see that he never uses edit summaries. I understand that very lengthy posts may not be perfect on first entry, but I would suggest that he could try composing his lengthy posts in a text window, which would permit him to view and correct before committing. However, if I only make one suggestion, it is that he at least occasionally use edit summaries. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:21, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Okay. I am a somewhat infrequent poster to[REDACTED] talk pages, and for the few posts I usually do on minor matters, this is not an issue. I will collapse the rest of this comment for those who wish to skip it as for discusions on facebook etc.

Robert Walker (talk) 08:57, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose a long-term topic-ban. Oppose a one-month topic ban. Support a restriction on the number of posts per day, for which 3 has been suggested, which could provide him an incentive to compose his walls of text in a text window. It is unfortunate that he has made this necessary. Restrictions on talk page posting should not become a rule. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:21, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Comment - it's not only the length; at the first place it's about WP:DONTGETIT. Robertinventor asked for a reference ont he link between the four truths and rebirth (his one edit to the article); thereafter, altogether eleven references and an extensive explanation have been provided, and the "reference needed"-tag has righfully been removed; yet, he still goes on and on about this point. It's endless. The RfC on the use of the word "redeath" was a good move, but Robert has already announced future RfC's, including on the link between the four truths and rebirth, despite the fact that this point has been settled by reliable sources and approved by multiple editors with a good grip on the topic. What more does he want? Waiting 'till one editor pops-up who also wants to bypass those eleven sources? Does he want twenty sources? Thirty? Hundred? "Discussion" 'till we've all died from old age, and can't discuss anymore? Continued discussion in our next lifes? When does this end? And that's the whole point: Robert doesn't know when his questions have been answered and his requests and "discussions" become distracting, so I want us, the rest, to stop him. That's why I requested a topic-ban. A limit of three posts a day won't stop him from dragging on endless "discussions." And get me clear on this one: I don't doubt his good intentions, and we might get along quite well if we got to know each other personally (I love his photograph! It makes me smile with a broad grin). But he's driving me nuts here. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:06, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

This is the list of future RfCs. The editors that remain in this topic tend to be ones that are in general agreement with Joshua Jonathan as others get all their edits reversed and eventually give up contributing. See for instance Dharmalion76 who was opposed to the use of the term redeath, who talks about the frequent bullying in the Buddhism project, and says it makes him want to walk away from the project, which I've also witnessed of other editors such as Dorje108, previous main editor of the Four Noble Truths until Joshua Jonathan took over with a massive rewrite in October 2014 (see how in this history page there is an abrupt transition between edits mainly by Dorje108 and edits mainly by Joshua Jonathan in October 2014 ). Joshua ignored Dorje's request to discuss - after that Dorje just left the project (after a long and unsuccessful attempt to deal with the issues by RfCs etc along with me).

Then there's ScientificQuest - a student with an MS in Electrical Engineering and Physics from University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, doing a MBS program from UC Berkeley, and an MA in Sanskrit, and a newbie[REDACTED] editor doing his first ever edits of the encyclopedia, who had every single contribution to the closely related Anatta article reverted by Joshua Jonathan on the basis that they were not based on WP:RS with JJ lecturing him on what counts as WP:RS in his area of expertise. He answered politely , but eventually just gave up, with not a single one of his contributions to the article accepted. I think this must happen to many more in this topic area. I have tried to attract the attention of experts in early Buddhist texts for this redeath RfC, but so far nobody has responded to the RfC announcement who is expert in this area, e.g. Pali scholar etc. At present it is a discussion between editors who are unable to read the original language (Pali) the early sutras are written in. Robert Walker (talk) 09:09, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I want to leave discussion of whether the third truth should be expressed as usually done as a path to cessation of suffering (as in the original wheel turning sutra), or as a path to end rebirth, to the RfC, and this doesn't seem to be the place to discuss details of our long debate on this. I just wanted to make this point, that I do understand that he is using WP:RS sources. But I think these sources do not demonstrate what he claims they do demonstrate and I think there is an element of WP:SYNTHESIS as well as relying on minority academic views. Details are for future discussion. Robert Walker (talk) 10:24, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Also to say that Joshua Jonathan often does 14 posts a day in these debates. So limiting me to 3 a day, even if I do that via drafts in my user space to reduce edits in the edit history would mean he would be able to do more than four posts to any discussion for every one of my posts. Robert Walker (talk) 11:02, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Standard offer for Technophant

• Technophant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki)

The above user has requested the standard offer, which was declined last time. It's been over a year since they've edited outside of userspace - is it time for a second chance? SQL 23:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support. It is time for a second chance. QuackGuru (talk) 23:07, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support I agree that it's time. Miniapolis 01:02, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support I have no problem with them coming back under the standard offer. I would like clarification on if they are under any current topic or interaction bans though. It is my assumption that these would stay in place, if still in effect. HighInBC 15:09, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

• The concerns mentioned by Dennis are valid. While I would prefer these be addressed I am not going to withdraw my support at this time. HighInBC 14:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support - Sure, last appeal was in August 2015, and resulted in no consensus: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive274#Standard Offer unblock request for Technophant (restored); I've alwayd been a proponent of second chances and rehabilitation, and I certainly think Technophant has been blocked for a long enough time to justify giving them another shot. As for active sanctions that HighInBC asked about: Technophant is still indefinitely topic banned from all edits related to Alternative medicine, and specifically Acupuncture (see WP:EDR for details and links to discussions). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:15, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

It would be nice to actually hear the subject address points 2 and 3 of standard offer. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:39, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

• ?????? I don't actually see any explanation of how they expect to move forward, after bypassing the block last time by editing as an IP. To their credit, they admitted the socking, however, supporting the removal of an indef block requires a bit more explanation by the person requesting the deed. Two short paragraphs would be sufficient. Last time, I had serious doubts about how forthright they were being. Today, I have nothing to judge by. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:42, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

From the conversation over the last time we discussed unblocking Technophant I wrote:

I am therefore of a mind, that if Technophant's block is lifted, to impose a six month ISIL ban under the SCW and ISIL general sanctions, to see if Technophant has learnt anything from this block, by allowing Technophant to edit in other project areas of Wikiepdia where he is not so emotionally involved with the subject, or other editors.

If anyone thinks that this is a bad idea please read my comments in full from the last unblocking discussion and explain to me where Technophant has explained how he now realises that his editor interaction had become antisocial and that socking was only the final straw that broke the camel's back. -- PBS (talk) 20:00, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

@user:HighInBC User:Salvidrim "long enough time to justify giving them another shot" the time is not the issue. The issue is does Technophant understand all the reasons that he was blocked? Where during this whole saga (from the initial topic ban up until this unblock request do you think he has given any explanation of how he will modify his behaviour in future? (a couple of diffs would be nice).

@User:Salvidrim as Technophant transferred his antisocial behaviour from the initial ban topic to other topic areas, why keep any ban on him if he is a reformed? If he is not reformed then why let him edit at all? BTW under what user:name was he topic banned? -- PBS (talk) 20:00, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I think you quoted the wrong person, I didn't say that. HighInBC 20:20, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry my mistake I should have addressed it to User:Salvidrim -- PBS (talk) 10:19, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Support Technoplant has already stated (in his Sept 2015) request I broke my promise I made to User:Adjwilley to permanently refrain from using IP edits and paid dearly for my mistake. I'm willing to put any and all past differences behind me and move forward in a constructive fashion Several comments I made above were very much out of character from my normal professional demeanor. I was going through a time of enormous personal stress at the time however I have recently gone through a great deal of personal growth, psychotherapy, and medication changes and now feel that I am ready to go "back to work" editing in my usual gnomish/elfish fashion., and three components of WP:STANDARDOFFER do not include groveling. (See WP:Editors have pride). Unblock the editor, and if their behavior (as opposed to rhetoric) indicates a problem, block 'em again.NE Ent 21:31, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support with PBS (talk · contribs)'s 6-month topic ban suggestion.--v/r - TP 00:44, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
• Not Yet, per User:Dennis Brown. I'd be inclined to support unless their response to the comments are completely off the wall, but I'd like to hear more from the user to be sure. Lankiveil 06:55, 16 April 2016 (UTC).
• Oppose per Dennis Brown. I have serious doubts and suggest if we err, that it's on the side of caution. The socking is too recent and the promises to finally behave are easy to make, hard to keep. Jusdafax 08:14, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

The last socking from this user was in November of 2014. To be fair - that's the 'last socking that we know of', per the user in question. It is difficult to trust someone who's already socked in the past. SQL 09:32, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support We should show forgiveness when a banned editor has shown that they want to move on from their previous behavior. If recidivism is an issue, blocks are cheap. The Wordsmith 20:31, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• "Blocks are cheap" is a hoary Misplaced Pages cliche, but it's not actually true. When an editor goes off the rails, it often takes considerable time and effort from the community to convince an admin that a block is needed. That's time and effort which could be used to improve the encyclopedia, so it does have a definite cost. BMK (talk) 03:02, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

• There are 500 cheap blocks for every one that takes more than a 10 paragraph discussion on ANI.--v/r - TP 03:11, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

• Probably so, if you're talking about run-of-the-mill blocks among the general editing population, but we're talking here about blocks based on noticeboard discussions, and that is a different animal entirely, where the ratio -- if not actually reversed -- would most probably be much, much lower. On blocks (or actually unblocks, since it's the unblock discussion which makes up the cost) which are discussed on noticeboard, you're always guaranteed to have a percentage of comments pushing WP:ROPE, WP:AGF, or other supposedly mitigating factors, and it takes time to overcome these and build up a consensus.In any event, I'm simply pointing out that "Blocks are cheap" is a cliche, and not a reasoned argument. BMK (talk) 23:07, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. At least until Technophant provides a better unblock request than what we have now. I asked him to amend his bare-bones request for unblocking here, but apart from attributing his block to administrator incompetence, he has thus far fallen short of actually providing a satisfactory request. I should note that while his block, as recorded in the block log, was for sockpuppetry, his behavior since then is the main reason for why he is still blocked to this day. He has thus far steadfastly refused to address anything other than the sockpuppetry. I don't think it's too much to ask for some recognition that his behavior was unacceptable.--Atlan (talk) 15:47, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

touch (so the discussion is not archived just yet) -- PBS (talk) 22:31, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Unless @Technophant: responds on his/her talkpage within the next 24 hours, I would recommend closing this discussion until they have time to participate. SQL 21:48, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Oppose for now Per Atlan's commentary, I want to see a WP:GAB compliant unblock request that takes responsibility for their being blocked and how they intend to prevent this in the future. Hasteur (talk) 12:09, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I have relisted this thread from the archive, per Technophant's request. He has returned and is willing to address concerns raised in this thread.--Atlan (talk) 07:27, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Something seems not wright. User requested unblock on 29 March and then promptly disappeared from 3 April to 6 May, seemingly only to return when the unblock request was fianlly declined. Anyway I will advise the user to make a statement which can then be copied here. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:10, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Administrative backlog