Misplaced Pages

:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:21, 10 October 2017 view sourceGoldenRing (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users6,924 edits →User editing a close about themselves← Previous edit Revision as of 15:32, 10 October 2017 view source Xenophrenic (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers19,497 edits +cmtNext edit →
Line 324: Line 324:
== User editing a close about themselves == == User editing a close about themselves ==


Back at the start of September, I closed ] at AN/I regarding ] with no action and the comment, ''inter alia'', {{tq|User:Xenophrenic is warned, as his block log should already have made clear to him, that our policy on edit warring does not contain an exception for when you are right, and even less for when you ''think'' you are right. Exemptions from the edit warring policy are narrowly defined and editors are expected to be familiar with them.}} Xenophrenic to ask, fairly civilly, that I reconsider the text of the close - in particular, that I strike the warning {{tq|because such a warning implies that I edit warred "because I was right, or thought I was right", which never happened}}. I for an explanation of his edit warring, after which (and I paraphrase, but I think it's fair) he that his edits could be construed as edit warring but that he was in the right in the situation and was not ''disruptively'' edit-warring. I took longer than I ought to respond, so Xenophrenic took it upon himself to , to remove what he saw as a personal attack. Back at the start of September, I closed ] at AN/I regarding ] with no action and the comment, ''inter alia'', {{tq|User:Xenophrenic is warned, as his block log should already have made clear to him, that our policy on edit warring does not contain an exception for when you are right, and even less for when you think you are right. Exemptions from the edit warring policy are narrowly defined and editors are expected to be familiar with them.}} Xenophrenic to ask, fairly civilly, that I reconsider the text of the close - in particular, that I strike the warning {{tq|because such a warning implies that I edit warred "because I was right, or thought I was right", which never happened}}. I for an explanation of his edit warring, after which (and I paraphrase, but I think it's fair) he that his edits could be construed as edit warring but that he was in the right in the situation and was not ''disruptively'' edit-warring. I took longer than I ought to respond, so Xenophrenic took it upon himself to , to remove what he saw as a personal attack.


I that change and that editing a close of a discussion about himself is inappropriate. After further thought, I that I declined to change the close as I thought it perfectly justified and that if he still wanted it changed, the Administrator's Noticeboard was the place to request review of the close (unless he thought this ripe for arbitration, which I advised against). Xenophrenic has all of that, both at my talk page and , and proceeded to , claiming NPA as his justification. ] has kindly reverted him again. I that change and that editing a close of a discussion about himself is inappropriate. After further thought, I that I declined to change the close as I thought it perfectly justified and that if he still wanted it changed, the Administrator's Noticeboard was the place to request review of the close (unless he thought this ripe for arbitration, which I advised against). Xenophrenic has all of that, both at my talk page and , and proceeded to , claiming NPA as his justification. ] has kindly reverted him again.
Line 334: Line 334:
I've created headings below to try to keep discussion of these two questions separate. I've created headings below to try to keep discussion of these two questions separate.
] (]) 09:41, 10 October 2017 (UTC) ] (]) 09:41, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
::GoldenRing, your partial chronology of events is somewhat accurate, but you left out a few very salient points. You seem to have left out the ''italics'' emphasis you used when you alleged I ''"think"'' I am right in your quote above, indicating you've already formed a personal opinion. Could you amend that for accuracy, please? ] (]) 14:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC) ::GoldenRing, your partial chronology of events is somewhat accurate, but you left out a few very salient points. You seem to have left out the ''italics'' emphasis you used when you alleged I ''"think"'' I am right in your quote above, indicating you've already formed a personal opinion. Could you amend that for accuracy, please? (I mean add the italics.)
::Second, could you please confirm for our readers here that you understand that I came to your Talk page only to have you either add evidence to your accusation about me, or redact/strike your accusation about me. And that you declined to do either?

::Third, can you please confirm for our readers that I ''only'' redacted your personal attacks, as instructed by ], when you did not, or declined, to provide the substantiating evidence?
::Fourth, can you please confirm that the only "editing a close of a discussion about himself" that I did was to remove your personal commentary about me until you provided substantiation in the form of diffs as evidence, as required by ]? ] (]) 14:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
::Finally, can you confirm that I, in my email to you, concluded by imploring you: '''{{tq|If you should find actual evidence to support any of your accusations (which will astonish me), then by all means do share it, and let's examine and discuss it so I can learn what improvements might be made. Does that sound like a workable solution to you?}}''' Instead, you came here. That is disappointing. And it sucks, because until now I thought you were just confused by other Misplaced Pages editors arguing for me in my absence. Now your position appears to be simply willful refusal to abide by policy. ] (]) 14:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
:::I am beginning to suspect that responding to you at all is a complete waste of time. I certainly don't intend to respond point-by-point to the bludgeoning going on below. I have italicised a word in my post above, since you seem to think it important to the timeline. Otherwise, the problems are all out on display here; I have detailed at some length above that you justified your edit-warring with various references of varying relevance to policy at my talk page; you edit-warred over the close of the discussion because you thought doing so was justified by policy; in short, you continue all the exact same pattern of activity that caused the original AN/I report; yet you continue to assert below that {{tq|"edit warring in the service of being '''RIGHT''' is against policy", and I would never conduct myself otherwise, and I never argued otherwise.}} Thank you for illustrating my point so very neatly. <small>Contra Softlavender below, irony appears to be not only alive, but kicking off the sheets and wondering where she will venture today.</small> ] (]) 15:21, 10 October 2017 (UTC) :::I am beginning to suspect that responding to you at all is a complete waste of time. I certainly don't intend to respond point-by-point to the bludgeoning going on below. I have italicised a word in my post above, since you seem to think it important to the timeline. Otherwise, the problems are all out on display here; I have detailed at some length above that you justified your edit-warring with various references of varying relevance to policy at my talk page; you edit-warred over the close of the discussion because you thought doing so was justified by policy; in short, you continue all the exact same pattern of activity that caused the original AN/I report; yet you continue to assert below that {{tq|"edit warring in the service of being '''RIGHT''' is against policy", and I would never conduct myself otherwise, and I never argued otherwise.}} Thank you for illustrating my point so very neatly. <small>Contra Softlavender below, irony appears to be not only alive, but kicking off the sheets and wondering where she will venture today.</small> ] (]) 15:21, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
::::{{xt|I have detailed at some length above that you justified your edit-warring with various references of varying relevance to policy at my talk page}}
::::This I can not argue against. I have indeed argued that I have edited according to policy. ] (]) 15:31, 10 October 2017 (UTC)


=== Closure Review === === Closure Review ===
Line 343: Line 348:
::Can you explain how GR's closing statement included "ex cathedra" opinions? The thread was about Xenophrenic's edit-warring. Your defense of Xenophrenic in that thread focused solely on content, not on Xenophrenic's behavior (edit warring), and in effect you simply thought Xenophrenic was "right" on the content side -- which in fact is the problem, as GR clearly pointed out: Edit warring is against policy ''even if you are right''. GR's close cut to the meat of the problem, according to policy, and left the content issues out (since ANI is not for content issues). ] (]) 10:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC) ::Can you explain how GR's closing statement included "ex cathedra" opinions? The thread was about Xenophrenic's edit-warring. Your defense of Xenophrenic in that thread focused solely on content, not on Xenophrenic's behavior (edit warring), and in effect you simply thought Xenophrenic was "right" on the content side -- which in fact is the problem, as GR clearly pointed out: Edit warring is against policy ''even if you are right''. GR's close cut to the meat of the problem, according to policy, and left the content issues out (since ANI is not for content issues). ] (]) 10:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
*'''Endorse Close''' - Based on a skim of that discussion, I didn't see any actionable consensuses either. GoldenRing's warning was not even close to a personal attack. ] (]) 10:29, 10 October 2017 (UTC) *'''Endorse Close''' - Based on a skim of that discussion, I didn't see any actionable consensuses either. GoldenRing's warning was not even close to a personal attack. ] (]) 10:29, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
*'''Endorse close''' - I agree with it, and I've already thanked GoldenRing for it. Someone needed to end that little "bump every 71 hours indefinitely" lynch-thread. I do ''not'', however, endorse GoldenRing's addition of personal commentary about me, disguised as a warning, insinuating that I somehow justify my editing because I am right about the content. I also do not endorse his additional little "''think'' you are right" jab. ] (]) 14:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC) *'''Endorse close''' - I agree with it, and I've already thanked GoldenRing for it. Someone needed to end that little "bump every 71 hours indefinitely" lynch-thread. I do ''not'', however, endorse GoldenRing's addition of personal commentary about me, disguised as a warning, insinuating that I somehow justify my editing because I am "right" about the content. I also do not endorse his additional little "''think'' you are right" jab, which appears to be inserted only to convey that he disagrees with my content edits. ] (]) 14:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)


=== Sanction Discussion === === Sanction Discussion ===
Line 350: Line 355:
::Can you explain how GR's closing statement included "ex cathedra" opinions? The thread was about Xenophrenic's edit-warring. Your defense of Xenophrenic in that thread focused solely on content, not on Xenophrenic's behavior (edit warring), and in effect you simply thought Xenophrenic was "right" on the content side -- which in fact is the problem, as GR clearly pointed out: Edit warring is against policy ''even if you are right''. GR's close cut to the meat of the problem, according to policy, and left the content issues out (since ANI is not for content issues). ] (]) 10:33, 10 October 2017 (UTC) ::Can you explain how GR's closing statement included "ex cathedra" opinions? The thread was about Xenophrenic's edit-warring. Your defense of Xenophrenic in that thread focused solely on content, not on Xenophrenic's behavior (edit warring), and in effect you simply thought Xenophrenic was "right" on the content side -- which in fact is the problem, as GR clearly pointed out: Edit warring is against policy ''even if you are right''. GR's close cut to the meat of the problem, according to policy, and left the content issues out (since ANI is not for content issues). ] (]) 10:33, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
:::Softlavender, you just highlighted the core problem here with your question. Do you see where you admitted it was Johnuniq, and not me, that argued I was "right" about the content? Bingo! If GoldenRing would simply address his warning about "being right doesn't justify edit-warring" to Johnuniq, the problem would be solved. :::Softlavender, you just highlighted the core problem here with your question. Do you see where you admitted it was Johnuniq, and not me, that argued I was "right" about the content? Bingo! If GoldenRing would simply address his warning about "being right doesn't justify edit-warring" to Johnuniq, the problem would be solved.
*<s>I'm torn on this.</s> On the one hand, repeatedly editing a closed discussion about yourself is completely unacceptable even if it contained a personal attack (it doesn't). On the other, ], and the disruption seems to have stopped for now. In any case, while GoldenRing can still claim only administrative involvement, I'd strongly encourage him not to be the one who applies a block, if it is decided that one is necessary. ] (]) 10:29, 10 October 2017 (UTC) *I'm torn on this. On the one hand, repeatedly editing a closed discussion about yourself is completely unacceptable even if it contained a personal attack (it doesn't). On the other, ], and the disruption seems to have stopped for now. In any case, while GoldenRing can still claim only administrative involvement, I'd strongly encourage him not to be the one who applies a block, if it is decided that one is necessary. ] (]) 10:29, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
::Whoa. Did you just claim that comments about a fellow editor's behavior, made without a single shred of supporting evidence, is '''NOT''' a personal attack? Have I been reading our policy on ] all wrong all this time? Seriously? As for your hesitancy to block me to prevent me from exercising ], because the "disruption seems to have stopped for now" -- what "disruption", exactly, was that again (just so we're both on the same page)? I believe removal of unsubstantiated personal attacks to be normal procedure, but I am willing to listen to your view on that. ] (]) 14:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC) ::Whoa. Did you just claim that comments about a fellow editor's behavior, made without a single shred of supporting evidence, is '''NOT''' a personal attack? Have I been reading our policy on ] all wrong all this time? Seriously? As for your hesitancy to block me to prevent me from exercising ], because the "disruption seems to have stopped for now" -- what "disruption", exactly, was that again (just so we're both on the same page)? I believe removal of unsubstantiated personal attacks to be normal procedure, but I am willing to listen to your view on that. ] (]) 14:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
:::I'm no longer torn on this, this seems like a pretty straightforward block and is starting to move into ] territory. That disruption ''was'' your "exercising" of ], except what you were removing was not a personal attack, was not close to a personal attack, was contained in the closing statement of a closed discussion, and was contained in a warning issued to you. ] (]) 15:12, 10 October 2017 (UTC) :::I'm no longer torn on this, this seems like a pretty straightforward block and is starting to move into ] territory. That disruption ''was'' your "exercising" of ], except what you were removing was not a personal attack, was not close to a personal attack, was contained in the closing statement of a closed discussion, and was contained in a warning issued to you. ] (]) 15:12, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
*I '''do not support''' a block for GoldenRing in this situation. I feel he was acting in the interest of the Misplaced Pages project when he shut down the AN/I discussion, even though he appears to have confused the arguments made by participants in that discussion (which Xenophrenic ''never'' joined) about "being right about content" as originating from Xenophrenic, which they did not. ] (]) 14:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC) *I '''do not support''' a block for GoldenRing in this situation. I feel he was acting in the interest of the Misplaced Pages project when he shut down the AN/I discussion, even though he appears to have confused the arguments made by participants in that discussion (which Xenophrenic ''never'' joined) about "being right about content" as originating from Xenophrenic, which they did not. ] (]) 14:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
*''1 second block'' This wasn't an ] ruling. This was making clear that "edit warring in the service of being '''RIGHT'''" is against policy. User appealed to the imposing admin and was declined. User was told exactly how they could appeal to the community at large the closing statement, but elected to edit the archives instead. It's quite clear where the disruption is coming from. No further disruption is continuing, so we don't need to punish but Pro forma 1-second block to put another notch on the shame stick to be considered the next time that Xenophrenic decides to willfully disrupt the primary purpose. ] (]) 13:23, 10 October 2017 (UTC) *''1 second block'' This wasn't an ] ruling. This was making clear that "edit warring in the service of being '''RIGHT'''" is against policy. User appealed to the imposing admin and was declined. User was told exactly how they could appeal to the community at large the closing statement, but elected to edit the archives instead. It's quite clear where the disruption is coming from. No further disruption is continuing, so we don't need to punish but Pro forma 1-second block to put another notch on the shame stick to be considered the next time that Xenophrenic decides to willfully disrupt the primary purpose. ] (]) 13:23, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
**Wow. "The shame stick" indeed. Your comment indicates that you haven't read the discussion between myself and GoldenRing. If you had, you would have read that I am already aware that "edit warring in the service of being '''RIGHT''' is against policy", and I would never conduct myself otherwise, and I never argued otherwise. Duh. This discussion is about my removing, per WP:RPA, a personal attack made about <u>my</u> motivations. Would you care to comment about the topic of this thread? ] (]) 14:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC) **Wow. "The shame stick" indeed. Your comment indicates that you haven't read the discussion between myself and GoldenRing. If you had, you would have read that I am already aware that "edit warring in the service of being '''RIGHT''' is against policy", and I would never conduct myself otherwise, and I never argued otherwise. Duh. This discussion is about my removing, per WP:RPA, a personal attack made about <u>my</u> motivations. Would you care to comment about the topic of this thread? ] (]) 14:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
*** Wow... Would you like to "demonstrate that the block is needed to prevent further disruption" even more? Cause the 14:27 post does exactly that. ] (]) 14:54, 10 October 2017 (UTC) *** Wow... Would you like to "demonstrate that the block is needed to prevent further disruption" even more? Cause the 14:27 post does exactly that. ] (]) 14:54, 10 October 2017 (UTC)


Revision as of 15:32, 10 October 2017

Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles,
content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators. Shortcuts

    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)

    Start a new discussion

    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.
    "WP:CR" redirects here. You may be looking for Misplaced Pages:Cleanup resources, Misplaced Pages:Categorizing redirects, Misplaced Pages:Copyrights, Misplaced Pages:Competence is required, Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution, Misplaced Pages:Content removal and WP:Criteria for redaction. "WP:ANC" redirects here. You may be looking for Misplaced Pages:Assume no clue.
    Noticeboards
    Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
    General
    Articles,
    content
    Page handling
    User conduct
    Other
    Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards

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

      Archiving icon
      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.
      Shortcuts

      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.

      Technical instructions for closers

      Please append {{Doing}} to the discussion's entry you are closing so that no one duplicates your effort. When finished, replace it with {{Close}} or {{Done}} and an optional note, and consider sending a {{Ping}} to the editor who placed the request. Where a formal closure is not needed, reply with {{Not done}}. After addressing a request, please mark the {{Initiated}} template with |done=yes. ClueBot III will automatically archive requests marked with {{Already done}}, {{Close}}, {{Done}} {{Not done}}, and {{Resolved}}.

      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

      Administrative discussions

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

      (Initiated 40 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 86 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)

      information 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 27 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

      XFD backlog
      V Oct Nov Dec Jan Total
      CfD 0 0 0 14 14
      TfD 0 0 0 6 6
      MfD 0 0 0 4 4
      FfD 0 0 2 18 20
      RfD 0 0 0 103 103
      AfD 0 0 0 1 1

      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 19 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 16 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 250 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: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 16 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 12 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 8 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

      Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

      Report
      Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (37 out of 9150 total) WATCH
      Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin
      Sakhnin 2025-01-22 22:16 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case
      2025 Israeli raid on Jenin 2025-01-22 21:30 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:ARBPIA Ymblanter
      User talk:183.96.64.204 2025-01-22 19:51 2025-01-24 19:51 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot
      Muzaffarpur 2025-01-22 19:29 2027-01-22 19:29 edit Persistent disruptive editing: Regular semi-protection ineffective, persistent block evasion and additions of poorly sourced material. Yamaguchi先生
      User talk:122.222.240.49 2025-01-22 09:26 2025-01-24 09:26 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot
      List of presidents of the United States 2025-01-22 08:56 2025-01-25 08:56 edit,move Persistent vandalism; requested at WP:RfPP Dr vulpes
      User talk:121.168.19.137 2025-01-22 08:48 2025-01-24 08:48 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot
      Ottoman–Persian Wars 2025-01-22 04:10 2025-02-26 16:31 edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and WP:CT/CID Daniel Case
      Ukrainian Air Force 2025-01-22 03:09 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:RUSUKR Daniel Case
      User:23 DaKeed 2025-01-21 21:21 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated BusterD
      Draft:Rajendra Tripathi 2025-01-21 21:10 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated BusterD
      Rio Grande 2025-01-21 20:17 2025-02-21 20:17 edit,move under contentious topic procedures Barkeep49
      John Fred Ogbonnaya 2025-01-21 19:30 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Liz
      JFO Star 2025-01-21 19:27 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Liz
      Misplaced Pages:Los Angeles Wildfire edit-a-thons 2025-01-21 18:25 2025-02-21 18:25 edit,move high profile, linked from banner Pharos
      Draft:Alexander Tetelbaum 2025-01-21 16:33 indefinite move Star Mississippi
      Skibidi 2025-01-21 15:01 indefinite move Persistent disruptive editing Ohnoitsjamie
      User:Barbara Walden 2025-01-21 07:40 2025-01-24 07:40 create Repeatedly recreated Liz
      User:Leonidlednev 2025-01-21 07:15 2026-01-21 07:15 edit Persistent vandalism from (auto)confirmed accounts; requested at WP:RfPP Dr vulpes
      Kajsa Ekis Ekman 2025-01-21 06:25 2026-01-21 06:25 edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:BLPCT ToBeFree
      Gulf of Mexico basin 2025-01-21 03:20 2025-02-21 03:20 edit,move protection under contentious topic procedures Barkeep49
      Atlantis Oil Field 2025-01-21 02:24 2025-02-21 02:24 edit,move page protection under the Contentious topic procedures Barkeep49
      HESEG Foundation 2025-01-20 22:51 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case
      Ulladabri 2025-01-20 18:49 indefinite create Sock target Pppery
      Denali 2025-01-20 17:35 2025-01-27 17:35 edit,move Edit warring / content dispute Timrollpickering
      2012 in Wales 2025-01-20 16:25 2025-04-20 16:25 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato
      Three-phase Israel–Hamas war ceasefire proposal 2025-01-20 08:32 indefinite edit Highly visible page as it's on the main page; likely move should be done by a sysop who can also fix the redirect on the main page Schwede66
      Solomon's Temple 2025-01-20 04:50 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case
      Temple in Jerusalem 2025-01-20 04:45 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case
      Kalingarayan 2025-01-20 03:27 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:GS/CASTE Daniel Case
      Timeline of the Israel-Hamas war (19 January 2025 – present) 2025-01-20 02:31 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:ARBPIA Johnuniq
      Koliya 2025-01-20 02:01 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: WP:GS/CASTE Johnuniq
      Nachos 2025-01-19 23:00 2025-01-26 23:00 edit,move Edit warring / content dispute: per ANEW Daniel Case
      Temple denial 2025-01-19 11:02 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement Doug Weller
      Rajput 2025-01-19 05:01 indefinite edit,move Restoring protection by Abecedare: restore ECP protection that would otherwise be lost when the full-protection expires shortly; WP:GSCASTE Protection Helper Bot
      Occhio 2025-01-19 01:49 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated: repeated recreation of promotional article from user with highly likely COI via move from draft status Risker
      Talk:9168 2025-01-19 01:12 2025-02-19 01:12 create Repeatedly recreated Fathoms Below

      RfC: Advisory RfC concerning Betacommand

      Moved to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Δ/2017 Advisory RFC

      Per Proposal 5 of the RFC, this RFC has been moved to a subpage. Primefac (talk) 20:08, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

      Ernst & Young

      User:Smartbot2017 has three times added claims to the Ernst & Young article stating that Ernst & Young <please don't repeat the potential libel here> (see ). I have no idea whether this claim is true or not, but the claim is unsourced and clearly libelous. I have removed the claim twice but do not wish to get involved in edit warring. Dormskirk (talk) 19:29, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

      I've removed the content and warned the editor again not to add this. If this keeps up, you might want to look into WP:3RR as well. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:33, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
      I've blocked the user for having a bot-like name. Primefac (talk) 20:36, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
      Bugger that - I've indef blocked for clear potential libel, I've rev deleted and I've requested oversight. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:00, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

      Deliberately abstruse discussion

      (non-admin closure) The IP editor has been blocked, per this discussion on AN/I. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:50, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

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

      Could some fellow admins please look at these edits? An experienced editor, Drmargi, is trying in good faith to communicate with another editor, an IPv6-hopper, and the IP editor has taken to rambling, incoherent screeds. At first glance I was reminded of this site, which generates generic, incoherent rants. I'm a bit unclear on what, if anything, should be done here, from an administrative perspective. The deliberately abstruse discussion doesn't seem to be focused on resolving the dispute, rather it seems like they're just soapboxing to hear themselves ramble. Ideas? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:55, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

      They have a nubbin of a point (from their perspective). In that they have an argument to not describe something on Misplaced Pages because it does not accurately convey the situation. Essentially the difference between physical coercion, and mental coercion as 'forcing' a party to take a specific action. I don't know if English is their first language, its also possible they are an intellectual/academic with a narrow viewpoint compared to Misplaced Pages's broad one. Everything they have said could have been said in a fraction the words and more clearly, which is usually a result of an academic background. Or language barrier. Also my eyes are bleeding. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:05, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
      @Only in death: Lol. Any thoughts for how I should handle it? Should I ignore it? Should I post a request that they use condensed comments? It doesn't seem to be moving the discussion along, rather, just confusing people, so it's unclear how it is constructive from a trying-to-achieve-consensus perspective. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:10, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
      Now that I think about it. It's pretty stupid that I came here for advice. I did nothing out of the gate. I'm so stressed... Let's consider this closed from my perspective. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:21, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
      (EC)A swift 'no' and a rolled up newspaper. More seriously, the article is a summary of the TV series/episode, which understandably takes artistic license with history. In common language the use of 'forced' in the episode guide is warranted. The actual situation is a bit more nuanced. The relevant historical article does not use the same harsh language. I would go with 'Dear editor, your concerns have been noted, however this is a work of fiction which may not reflect the reality of the time. We use 'forced' here because it is justified by the episode, we don't use it at the historical article because the situation is covered in more detail.' Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:22, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
      Just for the record, there are really two issues from my POV: the issue of the editor imposing his/her personal definition of "force" and the issue of the sheer volume of words designed to baffle me with bullshit, frankly. He's playing word games, not arguing in good faith, as the addition of two new threads arguing additional word-nits shows. However, my little problem has intersected with a much larger one being handled in other thread, which has lead to the IP being blocked, so I'm a happy camper for the moment. My thanks to @Cyphoidbomb: for his help. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 18:51, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
      The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

      RFC on potential username changes

      There is an RFC that has been started regarding a potential change in the rules for usernames. Please join in the conversation here. I know this isn't really an admin issue, but since it will affect admins in the future I'm posting it here. Primefac (talk) 18:29, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

      impolite language used by User:WWGB

      Wrong venue. Please refer to Misplaced Pages:Civility#Dealing with incivility. Alex Shih 04:47, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

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

      User:WWGB used impolite language against me in his post here. He was previously chastised for a personal attack against me here, given that he was already warned, I think a ban is justified. The original post where he made the personal attack against me can be found here --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 04:37, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

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

      Standard offer unblock appeal from User:Inside the Valley

      Clear consensus to unblock with one account restriction. Yunshui 水 11:44, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

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

      Posting on behalf of the blocked user:

      Have already admitted my misconduct before - the reason for my block is, I used multiple accounts (without formally declaring it), which was found later when I used one of that a/c for edit warring and was caught by a check-user. Followed by further accounts (socks). I regret & understand my mistake and I would like to start again productively. Charles Turing was my predominantly used a/c and the name by which I am commonly known to my fellow colleagues. I mostly edited articles related to Indian film industry and Kerala. I have developed two lists into FL status and two articles into GA, & some others close to achieving it. I would like to continue contributing productively by adhering to the principles here, please grant me a probational unblock—review my edits, run periodical check-user or even impose restrictions, until you see me fit.

      CU shows no activity on the IP addresses used by Inside the Valley beyond their own edits. Last active socks are too stale to check. Please indicate below whether you would support or oppose lifting the block. Yunshui 水 10:34, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

      Support: I previously declined an unblock request here. Given the likelihood this user has indeed refrained from all editing for six months and appears to understand the problem with multiple accounts, I support the unblock request as per WP:SO. --Yamla (talk) 15:31, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
      (Adding concurrence to one account restriction)--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:42, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
      The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

      Altering, striking out etc.

      Discussion has been closed. Primefac (talk) 12:08, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

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

      It seems all that is going to be said has been said, so before it gets archived by a bot, can an uninvolved administrator please look over Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Legacypac altering, striking out, and deleting other editors' talk page comments and close it. -- PBS (talk) 19:50, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

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

      Now archived at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive966#User:Legacypac altering, striking out, and deleting other editors' talk page comments -- PBS (talk) 21:09, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

      Ultraman Geed/Kamen Rider proxy group

      Over the past month, I have blocked the following IPs as proxies:

      They are listed in order based on their first edit, oldest to newest. They seem to focus on articles relating to Kamen Rider and Ultraman Geed. The articles they share may be viewed here.

      I do not know if there is an older master here, so I wanted to let others know of this. GAB 20:01, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

      @GeneralizationsAreBad: I'll offer this. I've seen this user editing since before I became an admin over ten years ago, using literally thousands of IP addresses. Just at random I'll give an example from 2007: 123.111.230.141 (talk · contribs). I've never seen their edits undone to any meaningful extent. There is probably only one person who know if there's an older account, which I don't think there is, and that's Ryulong, and he's banned. -- zzuuzz 10:00, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

      2017 Arbitration Committee Electoral Commission nominations

      Editors are invited to nominate themselves to serve on this year's Arbitration Committee Electoral Commission at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2017/Electoral Commission until 13 October 2017. For information on what this role entails, please see the introduction to the nomination page. Mz7 (talk) 01:28, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

      Jojhnjoy violating topic ban

      User blocked for 24 hours by A Train for violating topic ban. 6 month timer reset. (non-admin closure) Nihlus 12:24, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

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

      User Jojhnjoy has a topic ban for automobiles and units of measurement. About a month ago, the ban was violated (link), which resulted in a warning (link). Another violation has just occurred (link), so I request that admins consider further action. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 08:37, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

      The first edit was a correction of a protected space (I forgot the "&" symbol). Obviously a beneficial edit. The second edit was reverting an IP that removed a source from an article. I would consider that beneficial as well. I did not add or modify any units. Therefore, I doubt that any action is needed. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 08:52, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
      See WP:BANEX, neither of those are 'obvious' vandalism. 'Constructive' is irrelevant. You are banned from any automobile related edits. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:51, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
      Removing sources from articles is obvious vandalism. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 09:55, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
      No it isn't, when the edit was clearly made as a mistake as a result of attempting to make an improvement. Hence the 'obvious'. The reason you are under a ban is that your judgment cannot be trusted on automobile related articles. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:29, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
      The section I blanked was original research. A more detailled explaination can be found on the talk page. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 10:19, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
      That is irrelevant. WP:BANEX is explicit about when you can make edits regarding the subject. You are not allowed to determine content issues on articles related to automobiles. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:29, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
      • So what? There is a topic ban, there is no exclusion within that for making a "constructive" edit.
      As to this specific edit, the reason there is so little discussion with you over its content on that talk: page is that you demonstrated on the units issue, and by gaining this topic ban, that it is impossible to discuss any such issue with you. There is just no point in wasting other editor's time in trying to engage with you over it. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:31, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
      Can we clarify the scope of the topic ban here. Does it extend to talk: page discussion of the banned topic? I believe it does. I believe it ought to, as his behaviour over the units issue was just as disruptive there. In which case, is it time to make this clear, and to start striking through continuing breaches of it. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:10, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
      Its as broad a scope as you can get. "indefinitely topic banned from any edits relating to automobile and units of measurement of any kind". There is no wriggle-room in that (excepting those covered by BANEX). Any edits means any edits on any page. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:39, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
      The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

      Review of NAC of RFC

      I have reversed the close. A four-day-old discussion with only a handful of participants is hardly what can be considered a snow close. Primefac (talk) 17:42, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

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

      Can an admin take a look at the close of Template talk:Infobox World Heritage Site#RfC: revert back to non-Wikidata version?. It has been raised on the closer’s talk page alreadyby two editors (User talk:Francis Schonken#Template talk:Infobox World Heritage Site#RfC: revert back to non-Wikidata version?) without any resolution.--JohnBlackburnedeeds 11:45, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

      Ah, also see the comment I just posted above at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Premature_closure. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:51, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
      • Per WP:CLOSE "3.if an early closure is followed by multiple editors asking that it be reopened for further discussion, or a single editor has brought forth a compelling new perspective to the already closed discussion." I cant see an editor has made a compelling argument, but if multiple people are asking for it to be re-opened due to wanting further discussion, then its a valid reason to re-open an early close. I think its a waste of time, because there are currently problems that are unlikely to be fixed in the near future. But hey, WP without fruitless discussion would be... reddit? Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:56, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
      (ec) Wrong forum, see WP:CLOSECHALLENGE: WP:AN is the proper forum. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:58, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
      I've moved the discussion from WP:AN/I to AN. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 12:12, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
      Thanks. I still think WP:SNOW was the best option. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:20, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
      • I also think it was premature, and think it should be reopened, also since the closer seems to have strong feelings on the subject matter. Agathoclea (talk) 13:39, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
        • As it happens, no, I don't have strong feelings about the subject matter. Don't know what made you think that? --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:14, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
          • Your comments at Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 September 15#Template:Cite_Q certainly give the impression to me that you are against the use of Wikidata data. But if that is not the case then it certainly should be no problem for you to reopen the rfc. I for example have had no chance in its short life to comment on it. Agathoclea (talk) 15:43, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
            • Nah, that was about references (yes, I have strong feelings about WP:V – don't you?). References aren't the issue here. My reasons for operating a WP:SNOW close were entirely different. Re. "...had no chance...": you had dozens of edits since the RfC opened. Rather seems that you didn't because you didn't: nothing that indicates that you would have. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:57, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
              • As noted above, multiple editors have made good-faith requests for it to be reopened. If you're right that there is no chance of a different outcome, the cost of reopening will be a little wasted time. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:05, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
                • As quoted above, I might reconsider for "editors asking that it be reopened for further discussion" (emphasis added). None of them have done so thus far (further discussion didn't seem their objective). Closing early might be undone if further discussion would be useful: even the editor quoting that guidance above thought further discussion in a reopened RfC would have little chance of adding something useful to the (already extended) discussion, if I understand their quip correctly. Otherwise the outcome of this WP:AN will decide (which is not in my hands). --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:30, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
                  • Well, I have more that I want to discuss there, particularly as I disagree with a number of the statements made there this week. I was hoping to spend time doing that over the weekend. I wsn't asking for it to be reopened just because I disagree with the outcome... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:55, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
      • Repoen - The RfC was only allowed to run for a few days, and enough editors have expressed concern over the early close for the closer to take one for the team, undo the close themselves, and graciously save us the misfortune of having an extended time wasting discussion about whether reopening a discussion would be a waste of time. It's really not that big of a deal. Also I strongly object to the notion above that there is any discussion on Reddit that is fruitful. That is an outlandish claim and one that certainly needs to be backed up with diffs. GMG 17:36, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
      The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

      Please look into user Dr. K. abuse of editing moderator powers on Reincarnation article

      As the OP has said "Anyway thank you for your time and taking time to reply. Good day!", and as there's a clear consensus that there's going to be no admin action here, I think we can close this. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:45, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

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

      I was working on adding a mention to Zalmoxis on the Reincarnation article and was adding citations and I got a message saying I am vandalizing and that my editing privileges will be removed. I think this is a mistake because I was honestly trying to add valid knowledge into the article.

      Zalmoxis is mentioned as being a pupil of Pythagoras by Herodotus and like Pythagoras taught a form of soul transmigration or metempsychosis and multiple source Roman and Greek over the course of hundreds of years apart attest to this. These are not fringe theories but actual historical mentions from actual historical figures. Zalmoxis is also thought to have died and resurrected after 4 years. I think Zamoxis' connection with Pythagoras and his teachings deserve a passing mention in the article. Note that both Reincarnation and Metempsychosis "See Also" make reference to Zalmoxis article as related reading (added by other users).

      I started a talk see https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Reincarnation

      According to Edit Wars article the correct procedure in people who disagree on edits should talk it out in the Talk section which I am completely open to but the user by the name Dr. K. who removed my edit seems to think of himself an authority on the subject and there is nothing to discuss and in fact the tone very condescending and borderline threatening accusing me of perpetuating hoaxes and that I will shoot myself in the foot if I mention this to admins

      "Please be my guest but be also advised about WP:BOOMERANG. Best of luck. Dr. K. 19:24, 6 October 2017 (UTC)" if I mention this to admins.

      "No. Death is not an illusion and noone has come back from the dead. Please see WP:FRINGE and do not attempt to add hoaxes to the article. Dr. K. 19:12, 6 October 2017 (UTC)"

      I ask an admin to have a look into this issue because I believe this user is claiming a monopoly on knowledge and rejecting people's edits out of personal ideas and he is not an authority on this matter and should be open to discussing ideas that he disagrees with. I would like to make a formal complaint against this user (Dr. K.) and this methods of monopolizing my edits (and perhaps other's edits) on the article. Trollworkout (talk) 20:36, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

      Nothing here. One undo by user:Dr. K Dr.K. and an unconstructive edit warning. There's a thread open on the talk page. I see no reason at all for this to be at ANI. Meters (talk) 20:48, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
      I am here to defend my honour . I am not a hoaxer and my intent on this site is genuine. Dr. K. has painted me with a bad brush trying to accuse me of malicious intent this is unfounded and incorrect. Sure maybe the quality of my articles is not the best but I am not here with malicious intent. I am here to defend my honour against this unprofessional attitude accusing me of being a bad person which I am not. Thank you for your understanding and is all I had to say. I came here to help out not to spread hoaxes or vandalize. Regardles what you think of me of if you block me or not I am here with genuine intent and that's final. I tried to defend my honour and image but I guess everyone is siding with him so thank you for your consideration and time. Trollworkout (talk) 21:43, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
      I've notified Dr K. since Trollworkout did not. Meters (talk) 20:52, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
      My mistake. I had Dr. K and Dr.K. mixed up. Meters (talk) 22:58, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
      @Trollworkout:, there's nothing actionable here, Dr K was correct to revert your edits. Your sourcing was insufficient for the information you presented, and you also presented ancient mythology as fact. This might be a language barrier, is English your first language? In any case, I would recommend reading WP:EXTRAORDINARY and WP:RFB. I hope that helps. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 20:55, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
      The actionable part is his accusation of me of promoting hoaxes and vandalizing. This is not true. While ok my article's quality was debatable the problem was his reply very condescending and is hoping you guys gonna side with him and make me "shoot myself in the foot" that is my report will backfire . He doesn't want to admit he was wrong to call me vandal and to threaten to remove my editing privilege. My article might be weak but I am not a vandal or a hoaxer. He must publicly detract his accusation and remove his comment from my personal profile. This is why I am here. Not only the quality of my articles but he accused me of being someone I am not and when confronted he simply brushed me off and not willing to discuss this. His attitude is terrible and unprofessional and is very actionable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trollworkout (talk • contribs) 21:16, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict) More importantly, looking at Trollworkout's contribs, it seems clear they don't understand what is and isn't encyclopedic. WP:UNDUE applies here, and to the other edits they have had reverted. If you are going to add a lot of material that is clearly contentious, it is fine to add it once but it is usually smarter to start on the talk page and get a consensus, to avoid reverting and silly posts at WP:AN like this. Dr. K didn't call it vandalism in the summary, btw, he used a template for "unhelpful edits" that contains the word. Probably not the best template in this situation, but hardly worth getting worked up into a lather over it and certainly not worth sanction. Mr. Troll, while you are at it, please read WP:BRD. It may be an "essay", but most admin and most in the community will enforce it like it was a guideline here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:55, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
      Thank you for the replies however my image is still affect as being a hoaxer and vandal now. I have started a talking discussion instead of re editing the entry but the user continues to accuse me of being a hoaxer with condescending remarks and refuses to discuss. My incomplete citations are not reason enough to delete entire article and call me a hoaxer or a vandal and threaten me to remove my editing privileges. He has clearly stated he believes me talking to you guys will backfire and make me get banned. In fact he is hoping you will site with him. I am not a hoaxer or a vandal. I might have made a mistake but my article was incomplete and it was deleted before I could finish it. Regardless of the quality of my articles I believe his accusation of me being a hoaxer and a vandal is unfounded and unwillingness to discuss this further is disrespectful and unprofessional. Trollworkout (talk) 21:08, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
      I believe an admin with higher power must resolve this because he is unwilling to cooperate. For a moderator with admin privileges this is incredibly unprofessional. I did not get bothered that my article was erased but that I was called a hoaxer and a vandal and threaten to remove my editing privileges . This is unfair and unprofessional. I must request an admin look into his behavior and response and make him retract my accusation of me as is affecting my image. Is public slander. He must be willing to retract his message and show professionalism Trollworkout (talk)
      Dr. K is right. Talking here will backfire and get you banned; your contributions have issues that need to be addressed, and pretending that they don't will not help you. I'm going to explicitly suggest the boomerang WP:NOTHERE / WP:CIR block for User:Trollworkout now. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:14, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
      I have edited an article and the quality was questionable and I was accused of being a hoaxer and vandal. This is accusation us unfounded. I am not a hoaxer or a vandal and he must publicly detract his statement as it's affecting my image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trollworkout (talk • contribs) 21:18, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
      • I thank everyone for their helpful replies to the OP and I wish to make a comment. When the OP made an edit that included the text: Zalmoxis himself died and came back to life and taught everyone that nobody really dies but rather they simply become different people in a different place., I AGF'ed that he was competent and that he understood what he was writing. The text, as entered into the article, was patently a hoax, ergo the hoax/vandalism warning. If I had considered that this editor is incompetent, then perhaps, I should not have warned him at all. But his editing does not show clear signs of incompetence. The only other option is to consider that he is trolling. But who would think of such a thing? Dr. K. 22:11, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
      "Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Misplaced Pages, as you did at Reincarnation. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Dr. K. 18:51, 6 October 2017 (UTC)" First of all unconstructive is not even an English word and second notice you said appears to constitute vandalism keyword here being APPEARS. That is you removed my article with no definite proof that is indeed vandalism. The simple truth is you just didn't know anything about what I just added namely Zalmoxis, Zalmoxianism and you automatically assumed is nonsense without even bothering to verify or discuss it the person who added it and why. When I challenged you on it you decided to flame me with a condescending tone like I'm in power you listen to me type of attitude. I respect power but only when is well deserved. I am sure you do a great job but in my case you did my great disservice as I spent precious time to create those additions that were instantly discarded like trash. This is not an Encyclopedia where everyone can edit that's for sure. IS more of a knowledge monopoly of administrators who threaten to ban or remove any entry from people who don't respect their power. Is about power not about knowledge. It took me 2 days to realize how things go around here. Sad that I used to donate to this site. Your attitude is pushing contributors away doing great disservice to this site. Anyway thank you for your time and taking time to reply. Good day! Trollworkout (talk) 23:27, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
      • (1) Your edits were properly reverted by Dr.K
      • (2) Dr.K's edit summary was justifiable
      • (3) If you want to edit Misplaced Pages, grow a thicker skin
      • (4) If you want your edits not to be taken for hoaxes or trolling, change your account name
      • (5) You're wasting everyone's time here by repeating the same arguments ad nauseum
      • (6) If you're looking for an apology, no one can force Dr.K to apologize
      • (7) If you don't have anything more to say, stop posting here
      Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:37, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
      Speaking in my capacity as an admin, I couldn't put it any better than Beyond My Ken has. Nothing is going to happen to Dr. K. If you were wise, Mr. Troll, you would drop it and simply not comment further. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:45, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
      Totally agree. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:53, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

      Unless the editor has a side gig providing physical training to mythological creatures, Block under some combination of WP:NOTHERE/WP:POINT/WP:CIR/WP:USERNAME/"False Outrage" until they've chosen a new name, they've agreed to respect consensus, and they've learned that this was not a major slight on their "honor". Hasteur (talk) 13:25, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

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

      Topic ban on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Holly Neher (2nd nomination)

      This is quickly getting out of hand and out of scope. The original request was that the three named participants withdraw from the AFD. Two have voluntarily withdrawn, and the third (Cassianto) has not replied but also has not further edited the AFD. If Cassianto's behaviour in the AFD becomes an issue, then it can be brought back up. Primefac (talk) 15:19, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

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

      We have some serious trouble at this AfD; my assessment is that User:Paulmcdonald is trying to bait User:Cassianto and User:SchroCat into saying something that will get them blocked. This AfD does not need more than 34, 34, or 21 contributions from these three editors. Personally I have no opinion on the notability of the topic, and while I am convinced that the initial fault for this conflict lies with only one of these three, I think it's best if all three are prevented from editing the AfD. I ask the community to just drop a quick couple of YES votes here, because this AfD is going to run for a few more days and I don't want to block anyone, or see anyone blocked. Drmies (talk) 21:35, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

      Fine by me: I'll happily walk away from it. - SchroCat (talk) 21:36, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
      Thanks. Drmies (talk) 21:38, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
      • Yes. I agree not all three were to blame for the way it's turned out, but they've all surely said all they possibly can that's of any constructive value - and I think it's looking really quite intimidating to anyone else wanting to offer an opinion. (I'm neutral on the notability this time round). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:44, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
      • I was asked to walk away from the discussion earlier today and did so. I'm not baiting anyone. I admit that User:SchroCat and I did get stuck in WP:WABBITSEASON. I do not believe I made any comment to User:Cassianto at all. I agree that the discussion has long turned to the worse. But a "topic ban?" I'd like to know what I did wrong if that's the result. I do believe that other editors have been harsh and uncivil.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:46, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

      Is a WP:SNOW close of “no consensus” an option? Ritchie333 22:02, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

      • If that is what you see in there, of course. I don't think that an IAR solution of a merge to that list article is valid at this time, but I haven't looked at all the arguments. Drmies (talk) 22:05, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
      • You could certainly make a defensible argument for it, but I suspect it's much less drama/controversy if you just let the clock run out, and then make the no consensus close. Tazerdadog (talk) 23:09, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
      It's certainly an option, see one recent case here. Is it advisable? GMG 23:14, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
      I'm both involved and not an admin. While I strongly support the close at Stephen Paddock (and feel a similar close at Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Reactions_to_the_Las_Vegas_concert_shooting would be reasonable), I don't think an early No Consensus close is necessary here (and necessity is the standard I would support; it would be more per WP:IAR than WP:SNOW). power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:21, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
      It would be an odd decision to retain the article, given a clear consensus to delete Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Holly Neher a month ago, and a very dubious DRV Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2017 September 26 which should never have been accepted. - SchroCat (talk) 23:33, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
      I would strongly oppose a snow close of "no consensus", especially since there is actual consensus to delete the article. I don't think the drama caused by one editor should be rewarded with such a close. Let the community continue the discussion since the three editors of interest here have either voluntarily walked away or have not written any additional comments.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:29, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
      • Speaking as to procedure rather than the merits of this case, it would seem that the AFD would fall within discretionary sanctions being it is an AFD on a BLP. That is a big hammer to swing, but it would seem that it is possible to unilaterally ban someone without further community input, although I doubt it is necessary here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:54, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

      Would it be possible for this thread moved in this diff to be moved back into the main discussion and maybe collapsed before closing the AfD. Thanks. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 09:51, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

      Why? The removal may be debatable, but I don't see anything pertinent to the AfD there - it's all meta. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:06, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
      • I would support a topic ban if the badgering continued. However, two of those named have above said they have walked away and if that continues the envisaged topic ban might not be needed. That can be evaluated in, say, 36 hours. Johnuniq (talk) 10:46, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
      • This is, unfortunately, not the first time I have seen Paul McDonald trying to bait other AfD participants into an outburst. I'm glad both participants have agreed to walk way though. And I understand SchroCat's general frustration; it seems that, to get an article kept, you only need to "win" one AfD and then the article is safe forever. But to get a bad article deleted you need to "win" the AfD, then it sneaks back somehow via a dubious DRV, so you have to succeed at AfD2, which will probably end up at another DRV, and so on potentially indefinitely. This one is clearly heading for another delete consensus, so I do NOT support a non-consensus snow close. Reyk YO! 11:06, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
      • The Vintage Feminist, You have already commented on this thread, so you are aware I have agreed not to post to the page again. I therefore find it highly inappropriate for you to try and continue a discussion on that page, knowing I cannot respond. Why are you trying to provoke me into responding further, or was this just an attempt at cheap point scoring? Can I suggest that you remove your comment entirely. - SchroCat (talk) 12:14, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
      Yes I know you can't respond but you can read, my comments were for information purposes only. There is nothing provocative in my comments and they do not require a response. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 13:05, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
      OK, so it was just cheap point scoring then. - SchroCat (talk) 13:16, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
      Glasshouse? Bricks? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:41, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
      What an odd comment. Can you point out where I have posted to a thread where someone is unable to reply without threat of action against them? I find TVF's comment on the AfD thread to be indefensible, and if he's not baiting (which he says not), then it's just cheap point scoring. Would you prefer me to break my word here and reply to his comment on the AfD? - SchroCat (talk) 14:01, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

      sanctions for one user

      • I think we need a discussion that focuses on User:Cassianto, who has sought opportunities to undermine arguments for civility in the AfD discussion.  While SchroCat just says that he "PMSL" to describe his concerns about his civility behavior being brought before ArbCom, User:Cassianto says he "can't wait" to be brought before ArbCom.  He is pretty much requesting a block and daring anyone to block him.  I suggest that a one-week block is the appropriate path forward to protect the encyclopedia, with a warning that further one-week blocks can be expected when needed.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:38, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
      Comment The phrase "to protect the encyclopedia" is insulting to an editor who has produced as many FAs as Cassianto. If this is your aim, try doing some page patrol. I thought the agreement was meant to end the issues at the article's AfD discussion in a peaceful manner. It appears that the pot which was being stirred there has just been brought here. We hope (talk) 15:06, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
      • My stance isn't that far from Cassianto's: any filing at ArbCom would hve been closed down and thrown out fairly quickly. In other words, there is nothing from which to "protect" the enyclopadia. Youshould probably get to grips with the point tha the use of "naughty words" does not equal incivility. - SchroCat (talk) 15:00, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict) No, you need to just let it go. Sometimes people are are not very nice on Misplaced Pages, and some offend more frequently than others. It's generally best to let civility issues go unless they are extreme. To be sure, there is a line, but I do not believe Cassianto crossed that line in the AfD in question. You've given a strong impression of being too eager to take editors to ArbCom, and that impression will torpedo your efforts to get sanctions enforced. I had to learn the hard way from my experiences as AutomaticStrikeout, when I tried to play a civility cop far too many times. I had good intentions, but in the end my efforts had a tendency to further escalate the problems. If another editor is regularly rude/arrogant/pompous etc., other editors will see it for what it is and evaluate the editor accordingly. Lepricavark (talk) 15:10, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
      The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

      2017 Checkuser and Oversight appointments: Candidates appointed

      The Arbitration Committee is pleased to appoint the following users to the functionary team:

      The Committee would like to thank the community and all the candidates for bringing this process to a successful conclusion. The Arbitration Committee also welcomes the following users back to the functionary team:

      For the Arbitration Committee
      GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:30, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

      Discuss this at: Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#2017 Checkuser and Oversight appointments: Candidates appointed

      Talk page ARB sanc notice update

      Can someone uninvolved, update the talk page at Talk:Hurricanes and climate change with "Ds/talk notice|topic=cc|style=long", since it is covered by those sanctions, and there is currently what appears to be an edit war going on. Also I appreciate any efforts to settle the current content dispute (see talk newest section). Thanks. prokaryotes (talk) 15:55, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

      I don't believe that the notice has to be added by an admin, and the add seemed straight-forward to me, so I done did it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:46, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
      However, a editor stating in this edit summary, "Not the way DS works.", removed the notice. After moving the page, I've re-added the notice. Can an admin clarify if adding this notice to the article can be done by editors? prokaryotes (talk) 13:41, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
      It should be placed by an "uninvolved adminstrator". However, this one seems uncontroversial, and I will re-add it if it's removed again. Black Kite (talk) 14:54, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
      My apologies for placing the template, but I'm having some difficulty finding at WP:AC/DS anything which restricts the placement of a DS/alert template to "uninvolved administrators". I see a number of things which are specified for uninvolved admins, and I see that any editor can tell another editor that DS are in effect, but I don't see the specific restriction of the placement of the template to uninvolved admins. I'm probably just missing it - can someone point it out to me? Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:48, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
      I also don't see anything on point in the doc for Template:Ds/talk notice. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:56, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
      It shouldn't. Because its merely indicating an article is covered under a topic where ARBCOM have authorized discretionary sanctions. It is not imposing any. The absence/presence of the notice does not make the article any more/less subject to having discretionary sanctions applied against an editor - which relies on them being notified. Its generally best practice to have it on all talkpages related to articles covered by discretionary sanctions - if only to prevent people who claim they were not aware of them. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:32, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
      Will go hunt through the dusty backrooms of Arbcom documentation, but I reckon BMK/OID are right, these article talkpage notices don't (shouldn't) need to be added by an admin. In any case, as above there's nothing remotely controversial about flagging that this article is within DS for climate change. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:34, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
      While at it, is it correct that the article talk page notice is an alternative for a user talk page template notification, at least when the editor participates on the talk page, or after pointed out? prokaryotes (talk) 13:09, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
      @Prokaryotes: No. Notification requirements are at WP:AC/DS#aware.aware and do not mention article talk page notifications. GoldenRing (talk) 13:15, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
      What GoldenRing said. Regardless of any notice on an article talkpage, an editor needs to have either received a topic-applicable DS alert on their usertalk or met the other (less common) requirements outlined here. -- Euryalus (talk) 13:33, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

      I don't think placement of these notices is limited to administrators; the entire topic of climate change is subject to discretionary sanctions by direct virtue of an arbitration remedy (here); these talk page notices serve merely as a courtesy notice to editors and have no effect on enforcement of the sanctions. GoldenRing (talk) 13:23, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

      A notice is a notice, not a sanction. Any editor can place it. This has been discussed before many times. ~ Rob13 13:38, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
      Okay, thanks for the clarification. prokaryotes (talk) 13:44, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
      I suppose I would add as a matter of nuance, that it's usually better to have it added by an uninvolved admin anyway, because A) it usually avoids these kinds of mix ups over a widely misunderstood policy (or lack thereof), and B) it's usually better to arrange for some uninvolved admin to watchlist the page and keep an eye out for potential problems. There's often a difference between being technically correct and practically correct. Contrary to popular belief, being technically correct isn't always the best kind of correct. GMG 14:12, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
      That does not seem "practical", it seems "pro forma" - the hope and purpose of the warning is to head-off potential problems before they begin - it cannot be as effective in doing that, without being placed there by whoever happens to see it belongs, asap. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:40, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
      It's practical to the extent that an uninvolved admin is within arm's reach. If not, having another uninvolved experienced user add and watchlist is a close second. Either way avoids the impression that it's being used to score some kind of rhetorical points, which is an easy assumption for folks in a charged discussion to make. GMG

      Arab Israeli conflict

      Wrong location. Primefac (talk) 20:10, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

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

      Please protect Operation Summer Rains and Children in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict because New editors are prohibited from editing this Arab Israeli conflict related page Newbot17 (talk) 20:05, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

      Newbot17, requests for page protection are made at WP:RFPP. Primefac (talk) 20:10, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
      The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

      Please delete my old .js pages from my previous user rename

      Done. Primefac (talk) 20:46, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

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

      My account was renamed in June 2017. Please can these redirects be deleted:

      Thanks! – Batreeq 22:27, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

      Someone beat me to it, but it's done. Primefac (talk) 22:30, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
      The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

      Caste rules and BLPs

      Hey, I need a quick refresher on Misplaced Pages policy/guidelines on Indian caste identification for BLPs. Isn't the threshold for inclusion that an article subject has to self-identify as ___ caste? Am I imagining that? What's the relevant guideline? Though WP:CASTE reinforces that there's SOMETHING serious about caste identification, the relevant community/ARBCOM decisions are missing from the instruction sheet. 1) I need to know the relevant thingy, and 2) can people more familiar with the caste issue please update at least the more prominent warning templates to include clear explanations and links to relevant policies? Thanks all. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:09, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

      @SpacemanSpiff: Thanks for the info. Wow, that's a lot of stuff to read. What about for dead people? Same deal? They'd need to have self identified somewhere? Thanks mate, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:14, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
      User:Sitush/Common#Castelists summarises. No need for self-identification for dead people but BLP applies to recently deceased and we also have to be careful regarding caste-affiliated website claims etc. Personally, I'm not even very happy about using news sources for it: it is rarely of much significance and the Indian media in particular seem to grab a lot of filler detail from Misplaced Pages, creating a circular situation. - Sitush (talk) 14:21, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
      • For those who may be unfamiliar with BLP and why its applied to caste. The Indian caste system is bound up in large part with ethnicity & religion. You belong to X caste, you are assumed to belong to Y ethnic group. And vice versa, you belong to Y ethnicity, well you must be X caste! So if it helps people to understand it, a simplified way of dealing with it is consider 'caste' as 'ethnicity' and treat it the same way under BLP you would treat ethnic groups. EG, require self-identification from living people. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:39, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

      Discussion at User talk:Mr.Z-man/closeAFD

      You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:Mr.Z-man/closeAFD#RFC: redirect to XFDcloser?. Evad37  04:47, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Template:Z48

      Mass protection of templates

      Due to a recent wave of severe template vandalism (permalink), I've ran a query to find all unprotected templates with over 1,000 transclusions. Of those that had over 5,000 transclusions, I template-protected. The rest I semi'd. I've also created a filter. I can make MusikBot report unprotected templates that meet this criteria, but there is also Misplaced Pages:Database reports/Unprotected templates with many transclusions which reports templates that aren't template-protected. We should probably regularly keep an eye on that. You can use Twinkle's P-Batch module to mass-protect, first pasting the page titles on any page (such as your sandbox). Best — MusikAnimal 17:34, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

      Thanks for doing this MusikAnimal! Primefac (talk) 17:59, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
      Agree, thanks.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:00, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
      +1. Thank you MusikAnimal. Alex Shih 18:11, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
      Adding my thanks too. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:18, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
      Good work, MusikAnimal. Thank you. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:39, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
      One thing your script aparently ignored is pages protected using MediaWiki:Titleblacklist - anything with a "noedit" flag is protected even if it exists; ajnything with a "autoconfirmed" flag is semi-protected, while anything without is template-protected. So semi-protecting Template:Taxonomy/Eupitheciini, for example , was unnecessary. Please also keep in mind that anything transcluded in a cascade-protectred page is fully protected; human judgement is necessary to determine if this transclusion is permanent (in which case no protection is needed) or temporary. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:31, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
      I see. I did not know about some of those features! The title blacklist has precedence (you'll see its warning instead of the page protection warning), correct? If so, is there really harm in the redundancy? Should those items get removed from the title blacklist, or if the cascade-protection of a parent page is lifted, the templates will still have 1,000+ transclusions and hence should probably not be completely open. I might argue that having them protected just-in-case is worthwhile, but anyway I can probably get Twinkle to check for cascade-protection, and looks like there's an API endpoint to see if it's on the title blacklist. I appreciate the feedback (and unexpected praise!), this was simply an effort to plug up these vulnerable loopholes of the project that allow for massive disruption. Any page can be unprotected without consulting me :) — MusikAnimal 04:07, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
      Thanks for adding those protections. Even if currently redundant, multiple layers of security are desirable. It appears WP:High-risk templates is the only guidance for when something higher than semiprotection should be used. I suppose we will wait for further attacks before contemplating further protection but semi is a very easy hurdle. There is no need to unprotect templates merely to attain anyone can edit purity. Johnuniq (talk) 04:36, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

      Revdel needed ...

      ... on English people (edits plus edit summaries). The edits in question are the ones that removed some 70K bytes each. I have requested semi-protection at RFPP since it's an IP-hopper, so feel free to do that too... - Tom | Thomas.W 19:50, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

      Took care of the edits I believe. Let me know if I missed one. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:53, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

      User editing a close about themselves

      Back at the start of September, I closed this discussion at AN/I regarding User:Xenophrenic with no action and the comment, inter alia, User:Xenophrenic is warned, as his block log should already have made clear to him, that our policy on edit warring does not contain an exception for when you are right, and even less for when you think you are right. Exemptions from the edit warring policy are narrowly defined and editors are expected to be familiar with them. Xenophrenic appeared at my talk page to ask, fairly civilly, that I reconsider the text of the close - in particular, that I strike the warning because such a warning implies that I edit warred "because I was right, or thought I was right", which never happened. I asked for an explanation of his edit warring, after which (and I paraphrase, but I think it's fair) he admitted that his edits could be construed as edit warring but that he was in the right in the situation and was not disruptively edit-warring. I took longer than I ought to respond, so Xenophrenic took it upon himself to edit the close in the AN/I archive, to remove what he saw as a personal attack.

      I reverted that change and explained that editing a close of a discussion about himself is inappropriate. After further thought, I said that I declined to change the close as I thought it perfectly justified and that if he still wanted it changed, the Administrator's Noticeboard was the place to request review of the close (unless he thought this ripe for arbitration, which I advised against). Xenophrenic has rejected all of that, both at my talk page and in an email to me, and proceeded to edit the close again, claiming NPA as his justification. User:Softlavender has kindly reverted him again.

      I am within an inch of simply blocking for this as editing a close of a discussion about yourself seems to me so plainly disruptive as to be hardly worth discussing; however this seems to me likely to only escalate the situation and as Xenophrenic is an established editor and clearly disagrees, and out of an abundance of caution, I'm going to ask the question here first. Actually two questions:

      1. Is the warning in my close fair or should it be overturned?
      2. What sanction, if any, is appropriate for a user who repeatedly edits a close of a discussion about themselves?

      I've created headings below to try to keep discussion of these two questions separate. GoldenRing (talk) 09:41, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

      GoldenRing, your partial chronology of events is somewhat accurate, but you left out a few very salient points. You seem to have left out the italics emphasis you used when you alleged I "think" I am right in your quote above, indicating you've already formed a personal opinion. Could you amend that for accuracy, please? (I mean add the italics.)
      Second, could you please confirm for our readers here that you understand that I came to your Talk page only to have you either add evidence to your accusation about me, or redact/strike your accusation about me. And that you declined to do either?
      Third, can you please confirm for our readers that I only redacted your personal attacks, as instructed by WP:RPA, when you did not, or declined, to provide the substantiating evidence?
      Fourth, can you please confirm that the only "editing a close of a discussion about himself" that I did was to remove your personal commentary about me until you provided substantiation in the form of diffs as evidence, as required by policy? Xenophrenic (talk) 14:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
      Finally, can you confirm that I, in my email to you, concluded by imploring you: If you should find actual evidence to support any of your accusations (which will astonish me), then by all means do share it, and let's examine and discuss it so I can learn what improvements might be made. Does that sound like a workable solution to you? Instead, you came here. That is disappointing. And it sucks, because until now I thought you were just confused by other Misplaced Pages editors arguing for me in my absence. Now your position appears to be simply willful refusal to abide by policy. Xenophrenic (talk) 14:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
      I am beginning to suspect that responding to you at all is a complete waste of time. I certainly don't intend to respond point-by-point to the bludgeoning going on below. I have italicised a word in my post above, since you seem to think it important to the timeline. Otherwise, the problems are all out on display here; I have detailed at some length above that you justified your edit-warring with various references of varying relevance to policy at my talk page; you edit-warred over the close of the discussion because you thought doing so was justified by policy; in short, you continue all the exact same pattern of activity that caused the original AN/I report; yet you continue to assert below that "edit warring in the service of being RIGHT is against policy", and I would never conduct myself otherwise, and I never argued otherwise. Thank you for illustrating my point so very neatly. Contra Softlavender below, irony appears to be not only alive, but kicking off the sheets and wondering where she will venture today. GoldenRing (talk) 15:21, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
      I have detailed at some length above that you justified your edit-warring with various references of varying relevance to policy at my talk page
      This I can not argue against. I have indeed argued that I have edited according to policy. Xenophrenic (talk) 15:31, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

      Closure Review

      Can you explain how GR's closing statement included "ex cathedra" opinions? The thread was about Xenophrenic's edit-warring. Your defense of Xenophrenic in that thread focused solely on content, not on Xenophrenic's behavior (edit warring), and in effect you simply thought Xenophrenic was "right" on the content side -- which in fact is the problem, as GR clearly pointed out: Edit warring is against policy even if you are right. GR's close cut to the meat of the problem, according to policy, and left the content issues out (since ANI is not for content issues). Softlavender (talk) 10:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
      • Endorse Close - Based on a skim of that discussion, I didn't see any actionable consensuses either. GoldenRing's warning was not even close to a personal attack. Tazerdadog (talk) 10:29, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
      • Endorse close - I agree with it, and I've already thanked GoldenRing for it. Someone needed to end that little "bump every 71 hours indefinitely" lynch-thread. I do not, however, endorse GoldenRing's addition of personal commentary about me, disguised as a warning, insinuating that I somehow justify my editing because I am "right" about the content. I also do not endorse his additional little "think you are right" jab, which appears to be inserted only to convey that he disagrees with my content edits. Xenophrenic (talk) 14:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

      Sanction Discussion

      • Support a block for Xenophrenic for (A) repeatedly trying to very blatantly mistakenly argue that a warning against edit-warring even when he thinks he is right was a "personal attack", (B) unilaterally removing that admin-close warning (already archived!) as a so-called "personal attack" (which it very plainly wasn't) even after endless explanations why doing so would be against policy, and then (C) edit-warring to keep that admin-warning close removed solely because he thought he was right (yes, irony is dead). Softlavender (talk) 09:51, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
      • This is rubbish. GoldenRing is welcome to post in a section at ANI with their views but closing statements are not the place for ex cathedra opinions even when you are right. The whole discussion was a trainwreck with commentators pursuing bureaucratic see-no-evil purity when any consideration of the issues would show that Xenophrenic, while very misguided about processes, was entirely correct about the underlying issues. Johnuniq (talk) 10:20, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
      Can you explain how GR's closing statement included "ex cathedra" opinions? The thread was about Xenophrenic's edit-warring. Your defense of Xenophrenic in that thread focused solely on content, not on Xenophrenic's behavior (edit warring), and in effect you simply thought Xenophrenic was "right" on the content side -- which in fact is the problem, as GR clearly pointed out: Edit warring is against policy even if you are right. GR's close cut to the meat of the problem, according to policy, and left the content issues out (since ANI is not for content issues). Softlavender (talk) 10:33, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
      Softlavender, you just highlighted the core problem here with your question. Do you see where you admitted it was Johnuniq, and not me, that argued I was "right" about the content? Bingo! If GoldenRing would simply address his warning about "being right doesn't justify edit-warring" to Johnuniq, the problem would be solved.
      • I'm torn on this. On the one hand, repeatedly editing a closed discussion about yourself is completely unacceptable even if it contained a personal attack (it doesn't). On the other, WP:NOTPUNITIVE, and the disruption seems to have stopped for now. In any case, while GoldenRing can still claim only administrative involvement, I'd strongly encourage him not to be the one who applies a block, if it is decided that one is necessary. Tazerdadog (talk) 10:29, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
      Whoa. Did you just claim that comments about a fellow editor's behavior, made without a single shred of supporting evidence, is NOT a personal attack? Have I been reading our policy on What Is A Personal Attack (item #5) all wrong all this time? Seriously? As for your hesitancy to block me to prevent me from exercising WP:RPA, because the "disruption seems to have stopped for now" -- what "disruption", exactly, was that again (just so we're both on the same page)? I believe removal of unsubstantiated personal attacks to be normal procedure, but I am willing to listen to your view on that. Xenophrenic (talk) 14:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
      I'm no longer torn on this, this seems like a pretty straightforward block and is starting to move into WP:IDHT territory. That disruption was your "exercising" of WP:RPA, except what you were removing was not a personal attack, was not close to a personal attack, was contained in the closing statement of a closed discussion, and was contained in a warning issued to you. Tazerdadog (talk) 15:12, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
      • I do not support a block for GoldenRing in this situation. I feel he was acting in the interest of the Misplaced Pages project when he shut down the AN/I discussion, even though he appears to have confused the arguments made by participants in that discussion (which Xenophrenic never joined) about "being right about content" as originating from Xenophrenic, which they did not. Xenophrenic (talk) 14:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
      • 1 second block This wasn't an Ex Cathedra ruling. This was making clear that "edit warring in the service of being RIGHT" is against policy. User appealed to the imposing admin and was declined. User was told exactly how they could appeal to the community at large the closing statement, but elected to edit the archives instead. It's quite clear where the disruption is coming from. No further disruption is continuing, so we don't need to punish but Pro forma 1-second block to put another notch on the shame stick to be considered the next time that Xenophrenic decides to willfully disrupt the primary purpose. Hasteur (talk) 13:23, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
        • Wow. "The shame stick" indeed. Your comment indicates that you haven't read the discussion between myself and GoldenRing. If you had, you would have read that I am already aware that "edit warring in the service of being RIGHT is against policy", and I would never conduct myself otherwise, and I never argued otherwise. Duh. This discussion is about my removing, per WP:RPA, a personal attack made about my motivations. Would you care to comment about the topic of this thread? Xenophrenic (talk) 14:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

      Policy interpretation

      1. WP:WIAPA is, or is not, a policy which defines a comment about an editor's behavior as a "personal attack" if it is made without evidence, usually in the form of diffs?
      2. WP:RPA does, or does not, allow the removal of clear personal attacks, "anywhere on Misplaced Pages", and recommends the use of the {RPA} template when doing so?
      OFFTOPIC 1. It was not a personal attack and editors in good standing have said as much and you have admitted you were using the "But I was right" argument. 2. You were reverted and told by the imposing administrator where you could go to appeal the closure. 3. You chose not to do that and instead edit warred instead and a second administrator had to step in. End of story. You want to request a clarification/appeal of the terms, make your appeal, otherwise stay away from editing other editors comments especially if they've reverted your change. Hasteur (talk) 14:58, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

      Conduct unbecoming an Administrator

      I have a few concerns with how Admin Swarm handled a recent interaction with an editor. Two editors were engaged in a policy and content dispute over a problematic, newly created category template. One of these editors decided to file an AN/I report against the other editor, requesting a topic ban. Within just minutes after this AN/I report was posted, Admin Swarm implemented an account block against the accused editor (me), claiming "(Edit warring, disruptive and tendentious editing; see ANI report.)" So I followed this link to AN/I to see this Admin's reasoning and discovered that Admin Swarm had made a misinformed assessment and was not fully familiar with the circumstances of the situation. Since I had been instantly blocked and could not access AN/I, I instead provided additional information for him to consider on my Talk page, and asked if he would then please review his admin action with me.

      • Per WP:ADMINACCT: "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Misplaced Pages-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed."

      All I got was silence. Just in case the ping-utility didn't work, I pinged and asked again. More silence. I even asked if he would at least give me the courtesy of informing me that he has received my communication. More silence, even as I type this, while he continues with his other activities on Misplaced Pages. If I have misunderstood our policy and I have no reason to be concerned, could someone please explain it to me? (PLEASE NOTE: I am not addressing whether the block was right or wrong here; my concern is about the complete silence regarding the queries about an admin action.) In addition to this refusal to respond to a query about an admin action, Admin Swarm also made an unprovoked personal attack by claiming there was "strong POV-pushing associated with this user's behavior. This aggravating factor was handily present." I asked Admin Swarm if he would please provide the diffs and evidence that warranted such an attack.

      • Per WP:WIAPA: "What is considered to be a personal attack? Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki."

      Again, the only response I received was silence. If I have misunderstood our policy and I have no reason to be concerned, could someone please explain what I am misunderstanding here? (PLEASE NOTE: I make no argument here about whether the "comment on behavior" was right or wrong, until I see the 'evidence' that provoked it; my concern is about the violation of WP:NPA and the complete silence regarding the queries about an admin action.) And finally, when another editor suggested that I be conditionally unblocked to allow me to respond to the allegations and aspersions being hurled at me at AN/I, Admin Swarm responded, "You are mistaken. Blocked users may have their comments transcribed to AN/I, but I've never heard of easing a restriction for the purpose of AN/I."

      • Per WP:Block policy: "Users may be temporarily and conditionally unblocked to respond to a discussion regarding the circumstances of their block."

      I suppose Admin Swarm could be genuinely clueless about this fairly common practice of allowing accused editors to defend themselves in real time. However, given the above two examples of Admin Swarm's aversion to discussion, I must admit my good faith has been exhausted when I consider why he also might not want me engaging in discussion in my defense at AN/I. If I've misunderstood our blocking policy regarding this, please explain it to me. You can find all of my failed efforts to communicate with Admin Swarm starting here: on my Talk page; and you can find the full AN/I thread conducted while I was blocked archived here: ANI Thread. Thanks in advance for your attention to this matter, Xenophrenic (talk) 14:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

      Categories:
      Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions Add topic