Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:59, 21 October 2017

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

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

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

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

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

Template:Active editnotice

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

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

Archives

Index no archives yet (create)

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

• WP:CR
• WP:RFCL
• WP:ANRFC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other areas tracking old discussions

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

Administrative discussions

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

(Initiated 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 87 days ago on 28 October 2024) Participation/discussion has mostly stopped & is unlikely to pick back up again. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

(Initiated 77 days ago on 6 November 2024) RfC expired on 6 December 2024 . No new comments in over a week. Bogazicili (talk) 15:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Deletion discussions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talk:Donald Trump#Proposal to supersede consensus #50

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

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

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

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

RfC: Advisory RfC concerning Betacommand

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

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)

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)

Thanks MusikBot's dad! —usernamekiran(talk) 09:13, 14 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)

While you're protecting articles a lot of pages relating to Australian Education or Mangoes have been targeted by users from lots of different locations (probably some school craze, I'm still in secondary school and a lot of people nearly worship them). These might need cascade protection and a system to suggest edits, at least until the craze dies out. TomBarker23 (talk) 20:34, 17 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 --GoldenRing

This I can not argue against. I have indeed argued that I have edited according to policy. I had hoped to appeal to your sense of the greater good for the Misplaced Pages project: just tell me (by providing examples) what I did wrong, so I can improve, or if you were mistaken, simply redact your ill-considered comments. I am sorry that you consider the complaints and concerns of a fellow editor to be "bludgeoning". Above, your complained that I thought I was right about content, and I thought that justified edit-warring. Now you have shifted to complaining that I think I'm justified in edit-warring "because you thought doing so was justified by policy". PLEASE STOP, GoldenRing. What exactly are you after here? I edit Misplaced Pages to improve it, and I follow policy as best I can. Now your turn: what is your goal here? What would you have me do differently? Xenophrenic (talk) 15:31, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Closure Review

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

• Endorse close. GR's close was simply a warning for Xenophrenic not to repeat the actions which have gotten him a block log full of edit-warring blocks. Softlavender (talk) 09:51, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
• Closing statements should not have ex cathedra opinions. Johnuniq (talk) 10:21, 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) 10:39, 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)

Xenophrenic, your BS and ridicule do not fool anybody, and are signs that you are probably headed for another block soon -- if not for this report, then for something else, such as a CIR block. Softlavender (talk) 03:34, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

• Endorse close - a warning to stop edit warring is better than a block, and it's apparent that either were a possible outcome. Although the "when you think you're right" bit may have been better directed at a different editor, a warning that such activity might lead to sanctions is not a personal attack by a wide margin. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 19:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
• Endorse close. Clearly an appropriate close with no personal attack and no opinions. It was an accurate summary of the discussion and policy. ~ Rob₁₃ 18:20, 11 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. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:03, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Xenophrenic, your BS and ridicule do not fool anybody, and are signs that you are probably headed for another block soon -- if not for this report, then for something else. Softlavender (talk) 03:33, 12 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, 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)

@Xenophrenic:, in your edit here you modified one of my comments to change its meaning. Do not ever do this without the prior, very explicit permission of the author of the comment. Tazerdadog (talk) 15:53, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct on that point, Tazerdadof, and I'm sorry your "strike" HTML code was erased when I posted my edit. That was not my intention. I was getting "edit conflict" messages when I tried to post, so I instead edited an existing copy of the thread with the insertion of my text along with a copy&pasted addition of your comment, but I didn't copy (or even see) the "strike" coding you added. That was my mistake, and while unintentional, I am responsible and apologize for that f*ck-up. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:07, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Xenophrenic, your BS and ridicule do not fool anybody, and are signs that you are probably headed for another block soon -- if not for this report, then for something else. Softlavender (talk) 03:33, 12 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)

Xenophrenic, your BS and ridicule do not fool anybody, and are signs that you are probably headed for another block soon -- if not for this report, then for something else. Softlavender (talk) 03:33, 12 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)
    • 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. Hasteur (talk) 14:54, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
      • I don't see it. (And no, I'm not being intentionally obtuse here.) Where, exactly (please be specific) does my 14:27 post demonstrate that a block is needed? Xenophrenic (talk) 17:03, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Xenophrenic, your BS and ridicule do not fool anybody, and are signs that you are probably headed for another block soon -- if not for this report, then for something else, such as a CIR block. Softlavender (talk) 03:33, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
• Personal attacks or not, it's not appropriate for users to edit closes at all, let alone in archives. Doing it once is suitable for a warning; a second time should earn a short WP:IDHT block. If an editor has a legitimate concern about a closure or an archive containing a personal attack they should raise the issue with the editor who originally left the comment, and failing that ought to try AN/I. Nobody should be going around editing other users' comments without affirmative assent either from the commenting editor or a community discussion. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 19:45, 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?

• YES- those are both parts of our WP:NPA policy, and are accurate interpretations of our current policy. Xenophrenic (talk) 14:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

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)

Thank you for your opinion that commenting about an editor's behavior, without providing evidence, is not a personal attack. The wording of our policy says otherwise, and I would like to hear from other Admins on that point. And no, I have never "admitted you were using the "But I was right" argument at any time about content, as GoldenRing has alleged. As for policy, I hope I am right, but I am here asking for input and guidance on my understanding of policy. As for "appealing the closure", I have no intention of doing so, as I agree with it. End of story. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:03, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Reminder: NPA was a policy created by community consensus, and thus it can be clarified through community consensus (which is that that was not a personal attack). Thus, even if it was a personal attack, the community is perfectly justified in doing this. RileyBugz_投稿記録 21:26, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Xenophrenic Do not under any circumstances change annother editor's commentary without their explicit permission. per WP:TPO. I don't know how many times it has to be said. You just did it again with this posting and this entire thread is because you can't keep away from other editors postings. I am an experienced editor and I put the post exactly where I intended it to be. I ask for an emergency indefinite block until such time that you promise to never edit annother editor's comments (which includes changing indention) without their explicit permission. Hasteur (talk) 17:34, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Please, stop with the hysterics. I absolutely did NOT "change another editor's commentary as you say, nor would I ever intentionally do so. If you'll check the diff you just provided again, but more carefully this time, you'll see that my whole edit to your comment was to add a single colon (:) to fix the formatting. Per WP:TPO: Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments: Fixing format errors that render material difficult to read. In this case, restrict the edits to formatting changes only and preserve the content as much as possible. Examples include fixing indentation levels.... If you have some secret personal need to disregard our standard WP:INDENT convention of keeping things readable, just tell me and I'll respect your non-standard wishes. You screaming for an OMG EMERGENCY BLOCK is indicative of other problems. And just so we're all on the same page, "this entire thread" is about whether or not GoldenRing is going to provide the evidence required to substantiate his accusations about another editor's behavior and motivations. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:08, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not going to block you for adding one indent level to Hasteur's comment (@Hasteur: come on) but please consider not doing so again, as other editors have asked you not to. Repeatedly doing things after you've been kindly asked to stop is disruptive and leads to blocks. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 19:15, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

You're in the dock for futzing with other editors talk page posts and you willfully mess with them over an experienced editor. Tell me how you would have dealt with this if it weren't you? Hasteur (talk) 19:28, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Probably not call for an emergency indefinite block, lest indentations project wide be ruined in the interim. GMG 19:33, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I would ignore it. It's a fucking colon. It didn't change the meaning of your comment even a tiny bit. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 19:49, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

No comment whatsoever on the substance of any of this, but a note about WP:TPO, which allows alteration of another editor's comments for:

Fixing format errors that render material difficult to read. In this case, restrict the edits to formatting changes only and preserve the content as much as possible. Examples include fixing indentation levels...

The addition of a colon to help readability would generally be considered to fit into this category of edits, with the caveat, of course, that if the original editor objects, then it's not wise to repeat the change. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:22, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Proposal: CIR block at this time for continuing to BS and waste everyone's time

Xenophrenic is clearly gameplaying here to the extreme, colossally wasting everyone's time. I propose a CIR block for inability to edit collaboratively and abide by community norms, guidelines, and policies. The community should not need to waste time on this, and clearly should not waste any further time on it. Length of block to be determined based on length of previous blocks. Softlavender (talk) 03:53, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Softlavender (talk) 03:53, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support Xenophrenic has a long history of tendentious behavior on religion/atheism related articles and has wasted the valuable time of countless editors. He continues to push his POV through edit warring and large blocks of text, despite being repeatedly blocked. This block should be of a greater time period, such as six months or one year. desmay (talk) 14:39, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose – Seriously? Does anyone in good faith, honestly think Xenophrenic is incompetent? Irritating perhaps, in his dogged pursuit of his principles and how he views he was treated unfairly, but certainly not incompetent. After the way his unblock request was mishandled (see User:Newyorkbrad's Need for timely unblock reviews section below), I think it's understandable he's upset, and we can cut him some slack. A boomerang shaped trout to the proposer for a shit-stirring, drama mongering proposal. And all I see is more axe-grinding from Desmay, who's in a dispute with Xenophrenic. Mojoworker (talk) 20:13, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Mojoworker, please carefully read WP:Competence_is_required#Social. And then read Xenophrenic's non-stop BS and ridicule in the upthread. And then note that Xenophrenic waited 5 weeks after his block expired (7 weeks after his pings to Swarm) to open the thread below, and did so less than 5 hours after GoldenRing opened this thread about his repeated TPO violations. Softlavender (talk) 07:10, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

  @Softlavender:I have to ask again – seriously? The essay section WP:Competence_is_required#Social is all about working in Misplaced Pages's collaborative environment. It's an interesting coincidence that you, I, and Xenophrenic all began editing within months of one another in 2007. An editor doesn't last more than 10 years here, as the three of us have, without editing collaboratively. I don't recall interacting with you at any articles in the past, but I've run into Xenophrenic a handful of times over those 10+ years, and I've always found him civil and seen him provide policy based rationales when his edits have been challenged. It appears he may have edit warred at times, which certainly isn't a good thing, but you wanting a block, which, as Black Kite points out is generally indefinite, seems far too draconian and ill conceived. If you honestly think Xenophrenic is incompetent, and thus should be removed from the community, then I really don't know what to say to you. You characterize his behavior as "gameplaying" and "BS". I take a different and more charitable view. Really, how would you feel if your unblock request had been handled the same way? I know how I'd feel and I'm willing to grant him some slack, in part because of that. This place has gotten to be filled with so many venomous editors that I sometimes wonder why I still continue to participate here. And, as an aside, I'd wager that a good portion of the editors !voting here haven't even looked into the issue any further than what's here on AN, yet feel compelled to add their own 2¢ worth of bile. Sad indeed. As GreenMeansGo says, we should close this godawful thing. Mojoworker (talk) 00:22, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

  • You're totally misreprenting the section you're linking to, which was a general side note to a specific complaint about me not responding when pinged. The issue was quite simply not "mishandling" of the unblock request, though. Swarm ♠ 11:53, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

@Swarm:I'm not singling you out here – no admin handled the unblock request – it appears the only admin who even looked at it was Houn (and as much as the community doesn't want to address it, there aren't enough of you admins around these days – this is just a symptom). Newyorkbrad said: "I am troubled that an editor posted an unblock request on August 27, which was closed as stale on September 7 (11 days later) because the two-week block had just expired with no administrator having reviewed the block. Unblock requests, even complex ones, are a high administrator priority and I hope this degree of delay was an isolated instance." I don't think I'm misrepresenting his point at all – I certainly think that rises to the level of being mishandled, and I'd sincerely hope everyone here agrees with that. As I said before, if that had happened to me, I'd be righteously indignant. Mojoworker (talk) 23:11, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

This whole sorry thing has certainly pushed patrolling CAT:RFU up my priority list and changed how I approach requests there. I don't think I looked specifically at Xenophrenic's request while it was open (I don't recall doing so) but I can imagine that if I had, I'd have seen an open ANI discussion regarding it and simply thought, "Too Hard." I guess some requests languish, not because no-one gets to them but because no-one wants to make a decision and I'm trying to get better at making decisions on requests rather than avoiding them. GoldenRing (talk) 16:12, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

That is a perceptive assessment, GoldenRing, and your observation is spot-on. The backlog of "Unblock Requests" is not because of lack of available Administrators, but is due to lack of Admins willing to evaluate the "Too Hard" blocks. Those are often blocks issued based on very subjective discretion in the gray area between easy good blocks made because of clear policy violations or evidence, and mistaken or bad-faith blocks. As ironic evidence, note than an administrator was very available to answer general Talk page help requests and took the time to explain to me that there was a backlog in the requests for unblock -- but opted to not spend that time on the actual unblock request. That sparked my curiosity, so I spent the next few days watching that queue; request after request was added to, addressed and then removed from that queue all while mine sat there. I suspect plenty of patrolling Admins saw the request, decided they couldn't "decline" the request because it was reasonable, yet no one wanted to be the one to implicitly overturn a fellow Admin colleague by accepting the request. I admit I am at a loss as to what can be done to remedy that kind of situation. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:43, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• Can we just close this entire god awful thing? We need to do better with unblock requests. We need to do better about actually talking, whether it's about closes, blocks, unblocks, or what have you. We need to do that before it ends up here. We need to all probably dial it down a touch on the hysterics. And most of all we all need to go find something better to do. GMG 20:49, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Amen. Mojoworker (talk) 23:11, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support To answer Xenophrenic's question above - "What exactly are you after here?" - I'd have thought my request made it perfectly obvious what I was after. I asked two quite specific questions of the administrative community. Xenophrenic found it necessary to stick his oar in and he has the right to, but nonetheless I think I have my answers. The close was appropriate - endorsed again by a community consensus above - and a short block is suitable for someone editing closes about themselves repeatedly.
  In a wider sense, what I'm after is for Xenophrenic to stop edit warring and editing against consensus, even when he is right or thinks he is right. He has been edit-warring over the content at the base of this whole sorry thing since at least January ( ) and seeking to justify that edit-warring because he was right about the content since at least February, when he was blocked for it (, , among many, many examples). He has a sense of what is a personal attack that is completely out of step with community expectations and is perfectly prepared to edit-war over it (, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , and, well, it goes on - but note the ridiculous double standard here). He has an extensive history of editing other users' comments, moving other users' comments within discussions, and editing his own comments after they have been responded to ( (removes a comment complaining about him refactoring others' comments!) and, well, I'm bored with this now). That's from a review of a period of less than two months of this editor's editing. Against that background, the requests here to include specific diffs in a warning and the one below for Swarm to justify their block are both either entirely disingenuous or an enormous case of IDHT.
  The problems have not gone away, despite being blocked twice in the course of the dispute; when I leniently closed a discussion with a warning, instead of taking the warning to heart, he turned up at my talk page to yet again argue that the edit warring didn't matter because he was right, then started editing my closing comments because he perceived a personal attack and proceeded to edit-war over it (the irony is almost too thick to be enjoyable at this point). In this very discussion he has twice been admonished for editing another user's comments and then proceeded to edit his own comment above after I had responded to it, so that it appears I ignored most of what he had to say ().
  I started to write this comment in a request to close with no action, but I've talked myself into supporting an indef block. This user has had the problems with their editing explained to them repeatedly but persists in crying, "If only someone would tell me what I'm doing wrong!" Can I have an hour and a half of my life back now? GoldenRing (talk) 11:00, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

• And, if there's anyone else like me who finds copying links for 100-odd diffs somewhat straining on the good humour, they may be interested in User:GoldenRing/generate-diffs.js which lets you select the checkboxes next to revisions in a list and click a button to generate a list of diffs as wikitext and copy it to the clipboard. It also adds checkboxes to diff lists in user contribution lists. Completely untested in anything other than chrome-stable on Windows and whatever skin I have selected (Vector?). YMMV. GoldenRing (talk) 11:58, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

GoldenRing, holy cow, where to start? I asked you simply to add some evidence diffs to a warning you issued to substantiate your specious claim that I was justifying edit-warring because "I was right" about content -- no, worse, because I "think I am right" about content. What's that saying about "be careful what you ask for?" You've now posted a very intimidating 100+ diffs, so many diffs, in fact, that I would wager most people seeing them would simply blindly assume that whatever point(s) you are making must be well-substantiated just by virtue of the shear volume of blue links you've strung together. I wish to show that is not at all the case here. I do see where you have indeed managed to dig up just a couple legitimately problematic diffs, and while they don't establish your "persistent" or "ongoing problem" thesis, they do indicate I'm not a flawless editor, and they will get a response, too.

• "stop edit warring and editing against consensus"

Here you have collected a whopping 85 diffs, which all show me removing a problematic category (now deleted by community consensus) from 40+ articles, first because they were added wholly without reliable sources in violation of WP:CATVER. Then after the category was spammed back into the same 40+ articles, again without any reliable sourcing and under the pretext they "were under discussion" - I removed them again through a manual rollback after generously waiting until the discussion ended, as they were still in violation of our verification policy. So how do you justify calling these examples of edit warring against consensus? Grabbing some of your diffs at random, this 6th diff is edit warring how? Against what consensus, exactly, to keep that unsourced category in that article? How about this 68th diff, where I actually removed the cat three times over the span of a year, again because it totally lacked the required verification. What consensus was edit-warred against?

• "seeking to justify that edit-warring because he was right about the content"

Here you provide just 2 diffs, presumably the strongest you could find, and you claim there are "many, many more". Neither one shows me trying to justify edit-warring on the grounds I was "right" about the content. To the contrary, those diffs show me justifying my edits to Admin Fram and BrownHairedGirl as purely technical removals per WP:CAT, which requires: Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories. I could not make a determination of whether the content was "right" or "wrong" because the required reliable sources upon which such a thing could be determined were completely absent from the article. Since you claim there are "many, many more" examples, could we dig into those please, and locate just one to support your claim?

• "sense of what is a personal attack that is completely out of step with community expectations"

Here you provide 16 diffs of me replacing personal attacks accusing me of being a racist, block deleting, and canvassing, with the {{rpa}} template, as instructed by WP:RPA policy when the claims are completely devoid of substantiation. All of your examples are from the same now-banned editor, and same discussion, which was heavily discussed at AN/I. The result was the editor apologized for the "racism" personal attacks, the "canvassing" personal attacks were also indeed unsubstantiated. I believe our policy pages are the best indicator of what our "community expectations" are; do you agree? If not, the community would re-word them. We might disagree about severity of personal attacks, but I don't think there has been any disagreement that aspersions without evidence qualify. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe you, me, and the community, are "in step" with regard to agreeing that your "warning" about my behavior should be substantiated with evidence --- you and I disagree, however, as to whether that evidence already exists somewhere in that discussion. Do I have that right?

• "what is a personal attack ... note the ridiculous double standard here"

Here you provide only 1 diff, this one. I assume you are talking about what appears to be me tagging a couple editor's signatures with the "canvassed" template, after I complained about another editor accusing me of canvassing? That looks like a double standard, I agree -- UNTIL you realize that I was just fixing my previous edits after I had inadvertently deleted those tags. They were actually added by a now-banned editor a few edits earlier here, and not by me.

• "removes a comment complaining about him refactoring others' comments!"

No, I didn't. I did, however, move an off-topic personal post between editors from a CfD Discussion to the appropriate editor's Talk page for further discussion and follow-up, as instructed by WP:TPO - (Off-topic posts).

• "editing another user's comments and then proceeded to edit his own comment above after I had responded to it, so that it appears I ignored most"

This accusation has some merit, but not as an ongoing problem, and not in any way intentional (i.e.; to make it appear that you ignored most of it). I don't intentionally edit other people's comments (with the exception of formatting for readability as explicitly allowed by WP:TPO, and removal of clearly personal attacks as explicitly allowed by WP:RPA). As you and another editor here have pointed out, when I add or expand a comment in a high-traffic discussion, with repeated edit-conflicts, and I resort to off-line editing followed by a copy&paste, I get that rare screw-up you pointed out. If you'll check, you'll see my edit to expand my comment came just minutes on the heels of your reply (and was initiated before your reply) -- it wasn't an attempt to sneak additional comments in without you knowing it. It is a rare occurrence, but one to which I definitely need a better solution.

• "he turned up at my talk page to yet again argue that the edit warring didn't matter because he was right"

I ABSOLUTELY DID NOT. AND I WOULD NOT. That is some gall you have; did you just assume no one would check? To the contrary, here is what I actually said, quoted from your Talk page: At no time did I ever express the sentiment: "I'm right, so therefore I'm going to edit war". I did, however, persist in requesting (or "badger", to use BD2412's term) that the editors proposing to add the contested content provide the required reliable sourcing and justification. The whole reason I came to your Talk page was to try to clear up this very misunderstanding of yours, and now you have demonstrated that I have failed miserably in that endeavor. But okay, I'll bite: please quote my exact words here where you think I've argued that "the edit warring didn't matter because was right".

Xenophrenic (talk) 03:38, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, there you have it, ladies and gentlemen. I'm not going to respond at any length here; I think we've both had our say & there is ample here for people to judge for themselves. What matters at this point is not Xenophrenic and I slugging it out but the community coming to some consensus. GoldenRing (talk) 13:39, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support - Xenophrenic needs to either learn how to identify a personal attack in a manner roughly consistent with the broader community's views, or else he needs to stop removing personal attacks altogether. Tazerdadog (talk) 12:12, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

T'dog, I've been relying on the directions found at one of our core policy pages, aptly titled What Is A Personal Attack. To my knowledge, that is the broader community's view on how to identify a personal attack, is it not? Broadest, in fact. I realize that often when personal attacks are removed, somebody (or a group of somebodies) isn't going to like it - it's a bit confrontational. I've seen a few folks here rally around and declare "that's not a personal attack!", including you, but that seems to directly contradict our policy page. If you are saying I have it wrong, and the consensus among a limited group of objecting editors here actually represents the broader community view and supersedes our policy page, then you are correct that I have some learnin' to do. Do you think our NPA policy needs a rewrite or clarification to prevent this kind of misunderstanding in the future? I've asked for clarification of the policy in the thread just below this one, but an Admin rush-closed it before the question about identifying personal attacks was addressed. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:43, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - Oppose Softlavender's proposal as it is based on the ludicrously bad-faith assumption that there is extreme "gameplaying" and no competence. Further, I've seen nothing but hyperbole from her, zero productive suggestions, and this & this - which I'm sure will spark the appropriate admonishment (ha). GoldenRing at least made an attempt to justify his call for sanctions, but he did so by dredging up a bunch of diffs from January to demonstrate edit-warring, personal attack removal and Talk page formatting. Perhaps he doesn't realize that I was already grilled and poked on all of that at the drama boards, and the majority of his EW diffs were already cited as part of a block rationale by Fram. I'm sure all the same diffs will be dredged up and mischaracterized yet again a few months from now, and squeezed to see if yet another sanction will pop out. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:38, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

By the way, Mojoworker, you nailed it (yeah, even the "irritating" part). Very much appreciated. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 03:45, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support, after that latest wall-of-text above. If Xenophrenic won't drop the stick, then the stick needs to be taken away until they agree to stop. --Calton | Talk 06:16, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I guess you haven't been paying attention, Carlton. I don't have the stick. I dropped the stick 5 days ago and walked away from this discussion, and returned expecting to find it archived. Instead, I find that GoldenRing has not only picked up the stick, but is trying to beat me over the head with it. My concise 8K byte "wall of text" reply is dwarfed by GoldenRing's 16K "great wall of endless diffs". And if that obsessive action isn't disconcerting enough, he's building script tools to facilitate such behavior. Apparently, it wasn't enough when GoldenRing said "I think I have my answers" regarding this AN/I. Now he has declared his new "wider" mission to see me indefinitely blocked for all manner of alleged improper behavior backed by (__insert 100+ stale, unrelated, already-adjudicated and punished diffs here__). So I guess he has dragged me back into this mess. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 13:51, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

• Do you understand basic arithmetic? "I dropped the stick 5 days ago"? That comment came ONE DAY after your latest goddamned whinging wall-of-text. And, frankly, I find your officious "I guess you haven't been paying attention" attempt at an insult hilarious, considering that you IMMEDIATELY get my name wrong: so who, exactly, is not paying attention?
• But thank you for the confirmation that you need to stop or you should BE stopped for wasting everyone's time. --Calton | Talk 16:15, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

It still appears that you are not paying attention, or you are misunderstanding. This "waste of time" wasn't filed by me, it was filed by GoldenRing. He filed this mess over just two policy-compliant edits (count them, two) I made -after- first thoroughly discussing those edits and alternative solutions with him. So I added my input here, and on October 10 I walked away from this discussion (some call that "dropping the stick", but I say I never had a "stick" to drop) and expected it to close. For 5 days, until October 15th, I quietly watched as other editors chimed in. I even stayed quiet as Softlavender proposed weird sanctions for nonexistent reasons. But once GoldenRing decided he was done with his initial complaint here, and now wanted instead to start a whole different mission by digging up and re-litigating ancient history, I returned and left a brief refutation of his mostly false allegations, which he has decided not to challenge. So my math, and my attention to the details, are fine. If you address me again, I will again try to productively respond, as that is the respectful thing to do. Please keep in mind, however, if you feel you are wasting your time, that no one can force you to engage in this matter. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:45, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - This thread is predicated on a mess, and this is clearly still about that mess and not just the editing of the closing statement, as shown by the mass of diffs linked above. Xenophrenic saw a whole bunch of allegations thrown his way in the previous thread (some questionable, some exaggerated, some with some merit, some that needed more context, etc.). He was immediately blocked for those allegations, had all of his objections and unblock requests completely ignored for the duration of the block, and never received a response to his challenges to the accusations, as far as I know. This is all separate from GoldenRing, of course. I'm not trying to reopen the thread below this one; this is just to say that I can understand, in a powerless, frustrating situation, trying to at least address the insinuation in the close of the discussion in which he was not given the opportunity to defend himself. In other words, I think GR may be receiving a disproportionate amount of X's frustration because he is one of the few in a position to fix an aspect of this perceived injustice.

Xenophrenic, I think you're very unlikely to find satisfaction going down any of these paths, and will wind up simply preventing a scab from forming (or worse). I completely get feeling frustrated and/or hurt by the close (and think it would be a stand-up thing to do for GR to go back and remove that part, since though not quite a PA, it also wasn't a necessary part of the summary), but it was an acceptable close given the content. IMO the most positive outcome at this point would for all to drop it. You may have received a raw deal, but for better or worse, the community rarely expresses much of an interest in rehashing the past, unless in the context of the present. — Rhododendrites \\ 00:47, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support: As someone who has conflicted with Xenophrenic several times, his behavior (irrespective of the particular position he advocates for) has been very unconstructive and quite deserving of discipline. As other editors have already pointed out, he has excessively edit warred, blatantly disregarded established consensus numerous times, and exhibits a strong WP:BATTLEGROUND personality. His behavior in discussions has been very aggressive and unconstructive, as I think BD2412 has pointed out well (also, see this), and it is persistent behavior, nothing new. Xenophrenic has a long block log, and has been blocked so many times that his latest one was two weeks long (it seems that blocks are gradually lengthened if an editor persists in bad behavior). --1990'sguy (talk) 02:40, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I am not going to !vote in this discussion, because I think that would run counter to effective participation. However, I do not think that Xenophrenic is incompetent. I do, however, think that he falls rather instinctively into a battleground mentality, replete with instances of refusing to drop the stick, and refusing to acknowledge the legitimacy of positions contrary to his own. It is my preference that editors with these problems be corralled and corrected rather than blocked. bd2412 T 03:09, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
    • BD2412, CIR covers these behaviors, which are endlessly on display in these two threads, in WP:Competence_is_required#Social. Read Xenophrenic's non-stop BS and ridicule in the upthread. And then note that Xenophrenic waited 5 weeks after his block expired (7 weeks after his pings to Swarm) to open the thread below, and did so less than 5 hours after GoldenRing opened this thread about his actions. Call it WP:CIR, WP:BATTLEGROUND, or WP:DE, whichever you like, he is clearly and deliberately wasting the community's time trying endlessly to derail or invalidate GR's thread here. Softlavender (talk) 07:34, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support Manipulating a closer's comments (which do not look like personal attacks, but just a strict warning over edit warring) is simply unacceptable behavior. This does look like more disruptive and, even disturbing, behavior on Xenophrenic's part. My goodness, it seems that there is much difficulty on the part of Xenophrenic to accept any consensus or any decision by anyone that does not align with his view on any matter. The fact that other admins like User:BD2412 and User:Swarm recently raised an ANI over his conduct for similar reasons of disruptive and tendentious editing which included a block over the same type of "I am right and everyone else has to see it my way no matter what" battleground mentality , means that the behavior has not been self-corrected since the last block and ANI. The constant, and sometimes long, commenting by Xenophrenic still look like filibustering and are not really helpful since everyone knows his position - there is little reason to repeat or to constantly defend oneself since if the evidence is strong people will naturally agree with the defense on their own. (Not sure why Xenophrenic has self-voted "oppose" above when it is obvious that he opposes a block considering the long response to GoldenRing above - who started this ANI). When it comes to discussions, other people's opinions are what we are seeking - views from others in the community. We already know the views of the accusers and the accused (both have already exchanged comments) so let the jury discuss the matter as they see fit. Things like endlessly arguing over closures over categories, constant edit warring over article content, and even now manipulating closer comments on ANI's does look like a lack of self control when dealing with dissenting comments by editors.

All decisions on[REDACTED] are all imperfect since everyone is a volunteer but to contest every decision that one disagrees with with disruptive editing has consequences. Refusing to drop the stick so often is simply not good and in the end people will make their votes and decisions as they see fit - as imperfect as that is. If one thinks one is right, it does not mean that everyone else will see it that way (sometimes some will never be convinced no matter what), but one has to be able to drop the stick and move on without fighting so much. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 06:43, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose for the simple reason that whilst some of "Support" comments above are good faith, a number are still from editors who are on the opposite side of an editing issue with Xenophrenic and this is another attempt to have them removed. I am not a big fan of removing people in this way. Black Kite (talk) 07:27, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  • @Black Kite: There's no "removal" involved; the proposal states "Length of block to be determined based on length of previous blocks." The proposal is to stop Xenophrenic from deliberately wasting the community's time. His last block was for 2 weeks. Softlavender (talk) 07:43, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
    • As we all know, though, CIR blocks are generally indefinite (anything else would be ridiculous, after all - practically no-one who is incompetent enough to receive one suddenly gains a clue after a couple of weeks). And that's my other issue here - Xenophrenic isn't incompetent. They may be a number of other things, but not that. Black Kite (talk) 08:22, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  • @Black Kite: I am curious about this. Why is the possibility that some of the people supporting the proposal are doing so in bad faith a good reason to oppose it? That says nothing about the merits of the case (and the problems and ludicrous bad faiththe problems and ludicrous bad faith continue). GoldenRing (talk) 11:08, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
    • I had some dealings with this area when I closed that shitfest of a CfD a while back, and whilst doing that I read quite a bit of the background round these disputes. I'm not disputing that some of Xenophrenic's editing is not optimal, but there were/are a hell of lot of others in the same boat at the same time. There is no CIR issue here, but there surely is a lot of hypocrisy from the editors who are trying to dispose of him (and incidentally, I don't include you in that category, if you were wondering). Black Kite (talk) 22:19, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
      • Black Kite: Please carefully read WP:Competence_is_required#Social. And then read Xenophrenic's non-stop BS and ridicule in the upthread. And then note that Xenophrenic waited 5 weeks after his block expired (7 weeks after his pings to Swarm) to open the thread below, and did so less than 5 hours after GoldenRing opened this thread about his repeated TPO violations. Softlavender (talk) 08:11, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support - Per the bludgeoning behaviors we're seeing at ANI and the apparent lack of good faith associated with this user's behavior. Part of CIR is the simple notion of not being more trouble to the community than you're worth, and these ANI timesinks are symptoms of this user being either unable or unwilling to understand that. This is certainly the inevitable result of Xenophrenic's recent behavior. If it doesn't happen now, it's going to soon if they don't change quickly. Swarm ♠ 11:47, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose CIR block. I don't necessarily oppose a block for some preventative reason if there's a valid one, but not for CIR - this is not a competence issue. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:49, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Boing! said Zebedee: Please carefully read WP:Competence_is_required#Social. And then read Xenophrenic's non-stop BS and ridicule in the upthread. And then note that Xenophrenic waited 5 weeks after his block expired (7 weeks after his pings to Swarm) to open the thread below, and did so less than 5 hours after GoldenRing opened this thread about his repeated TPO violations. Softlavender (talk) 08:11, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
    • I already know how to suck eggs, thank you. Please carefully try not to be so patronizing. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:19, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
• Seriously - I wasn't following this anymore until I was pinged, and I wish I had never commented so I could close it myself. But for the love of God, someone please put this god forsaken waste of time out of it's misery. GMG 00:31, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose further sanctions, support close. Xenophrenic jumped the shark and did a bunch of silly things. However, a two-week block for the edit warring was served so diffs showing old edit warring are no longer relevant. Xenophrenic should have seen that their approaches to the two admins were not going anywhere and should have accepted that it's not always possible to have one's views heard when there has been a great deal of background noise. The underlying problem is the abuse of Misplaced Pages to spread the word about atheism being evil. Xenophrenic will need to develop much more patience while dealing with that. For the record, the ANI archive behind all this shows a request for a topic ban that was unsuccessful. Johnuniq (talk) 09:35, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support/Oppose Support if they don't drop it, oppose if they do. At this point (here and numerous cases in the archives) they are just wasting everyone's time. They show all the behavior of someone who is unable to accept they are wrong and that other people do not agree with them. This is also why they edit war repeatedly. So they can either be given a final warning to drop the stick or as someone points out above, it can be taken away from them. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:46, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

• @Only in death: To clarify my own support, it is very much predicated on Xenophrenic not dropping the stick. It's not looking likely, since he thinks he already has and I caused this whole thing somehow. GoldenRing (talk) 11:11, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Er I feel that diff doesn't show what you think it shows. :) Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:46, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Er, no, quite. Looks like the script could do with more testing. Correct diff here. GoldenRing (talk) 15:07, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose as framed I share Black Kite's sentiments. Xenophrenic should, and must, drop this, but that's an attitude they should adjust, certainly not a competence issue. Johnuniq talks a lot of sense, just above, as does BSZ. -- Begoon 11:27, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

At what point does it stop being an attitude issue and become a competence issue? Take a look in the archives for here and ANI. I severely doubt this is a case of 'they have an attitude problem which can be changed'. There is zero evidence from their editing history they either want to, or are actually even able to. Which puts it squarely in the competence area. If an editor is unable to change, or even acknowledge they have to and are going to attempt to change, we are just prolonging the problem. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:39, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, thinking about it, I guess I mostly agree with whoever said "Support if they don't drop it, oppose if they do.". I don't feel like we're too far apart here. I'd just rather CIR wasn't invoked in this way (hence my "as framed"). WP:DISRUPT works just fine if they don't drop it - it's then a deliberate thing, not incompetence. -- Begoon 12:10, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Begoon: Please read WP:Competence_is_required#Social. And then read Xenophrenic's non-stop BS and ridicule in the upthread. And then note that Xenophrenic waited 5 weeks after his block expired (7 weeks after his pings to Swarm) to open the thread below, and did so less than 5 hours after GoldenRing opened this thread about his repeated TPO violations. Softlavender (talk) 08:11, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Errmm... What Boing! said above in response to this, really, (although I note you somehow made me exempt from your "carefully" proviso while c/pasting.) No real need to ping me for this kind of thing. Thanks. -- Begoon 10:53, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support. He has a history of being a bad faith editor and a history of edit warring. He has been blocked 10 times at Misplaced Pages. He has been incorrigible for an extended period. His edits often do not make sense and a CIR block is warranted.Knox490 (talk) 21:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
• Comment? - An odd sequence of edits in this thread just now... Legacypac closed this and removed this presumed accidental duplicate text. Softlavender reverted the close with edit summary "rv involved non-admin closure" (how is Legacypac involved?) and reverted the latter as "rv TPO violation" (so this was intentional copy/pasting the same text to AN five times just before proposing a CIR block?) — Rhododendrites \\ 05:06, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Legacypac violated WP:TPO by removing my comment; he has been violating WP:TPO repeatedly and was brought to ANI and warned about that just within the past 3 weeks. He then also closed this AN discussion, which clearly needs to be closed by an administrator (if at all) -- this is the Administrator's Noticeboard -- not by an non-administrator with a block log for DE and a history of disruption and who has just violated TPO in the same thread. Softlavender (talk) 05:18, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Not sure why Softlavender wants to attack me - we used to nearly always see things the same way until I VERY inadvertently evidently offended them. I'll AGF and stand by my assessment that their comment was duplicated by accident (I presumed by another editor) and believe that removing an exact duplicate accidental comment is not a TPO violation but should be treated as welcome housekeeping.

My attempt to close down these proposal is correct. The debate that remains nearly evenly split with support/opposes and is itself wasting time now as it is unlikely to lead to any sanctions. Ironically the proposal itself includes the rational "colossally wasting everyone's time. ... The community should not need to waste time on this, and clearly should not waste any further time on it." I was closing the entire thread as a waste of timr but was edit conflicted out by the Softlavender reverts, so I left it. Legacypac (talk) 07:33, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm also not INVOLVED in this dispute, I just read the entire thing and came to the conclusion it had run its course - an assessment shared by several other editors in this thread. Admins are NOT necessary better at closes than regular editors and, as my block log shows, are perfectly capable of making mistakes like the rest of us. Legacypac (talk) 07:39, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

 Comment: This has been opened for 7 days but no clear consensus has formed, and an extension might not be helpful as the oppose votes are strongly based CIR being possibly not the best reason. I will take a look at this later when I get home, but for now I think an alternative option to the original proposal would probably generate a clearer consensus. Alex Shih 07:43, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

@Alex Shih: Please not a "close this and let's have the whole discussion again with slightly different wording" type of close. Finding that there is consensus for an indef but not the type of indef originally proposed and so actually finding no consensus would be mindless bureaucracy, surely? It seems to me (who is no doubt biased) that if there is consensus for a block, then it's for an indefinite one until we see a change in X's ways. If there's not already consensus for a block on the basis of the above, let's drop it for now and wait until the next round adds another straw to the camel's back. GoldenRing (talk) 09:28, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

@GoldenRing: I think you accidently misworded your comment when you said "if there is consensus for a block, then it's for an indefinite one until we see a change in X's ways". You do realize if I'm blocked (i.e.; not editing at all), there is no way to "see a change" in anything about me, as I won't be here. Did you perhaps mean "topic ban", so that I can demonstrate productive editing "elsewhere"? If so, what topic would that be? AN/I discussion pages? Also, blocks are supposed to be preventive, not punitive -- and there is no ongoing disruption to Misplaced Pages that requires blocking. It is evident that a few folks here are trying desperately to push the false narrative that my mere presence on Misplaced Pages is a disruption that needs to be "blocked", but no reasonable justification has been given for such a draconian action. (And then there are the four editors above who routinely join in any discussion about me, yelling "support sanction", not because I am a disruption to Misplaced Pages, but because I've been a disruption to their personal agenda, as noted by both editors and Admins in the discussion above. I don't even bother to respond to them anymore.) I don't want to see this discussion extended or rehashed any more than you do, so at least we agree on that. But if your ultimate goal is genuinely "to see a change in my ways", can you please explain to me why when I asked you to please point out what I did wrong (point out the actual edits) so that I could understand your "warning" and make appropriate changes, you declined and came here instead? Xenophrenic (talk) 22:43, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

No I did not mis-word my comment. It is perfectly routine to indef editors until they can convince us that they have changed their ways. It is a flat-out lie that "when I asked you to please point out what I did wrong (point out the actual edits) so that I could understand your "warning" and make appropriate changes, you declined and came here instead." You came to my talk page to ask me to revise my close on the grounds you hadn't done the things you thought it implied. I discussed it with you and gave a detailed and reasonable response. You refused to hear the answer, edit-warred over it and then emailed to continue your IDHT ways. In the face of that, I brought it here, as a marginally better option that just blocking you for disruptive editing. GoldenRing (talk) 13:09, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your additional clarification; your rewording of "until we see a change" to "until they can convince us that they have changed" with promises and such, makes much more sense now. That sounds like our WP:Standard offer, which requires clear delineation of a problematic behavior, and a promise to not continue that behavior. May I ask you what clearly delineated problematic behavior (not the hyperbolic, false accusations put forth above) you see as warranting an indefinite block and a promise to change?

As for your assertion that I have just "flat-out lied", I'm going to ask you to please retract that. It is 100% factual that I asked you to please point out what I did wrong, per your 'warning', by providing the diffs/evidence/examples so that I could understand and make appropriate changes, but you declined. (Show me just one diff you provided before you initiated this shitfest and you will have me apologizing profusely!) Are you now denying that I implored you, "I am always willing to discuss", and "If you want to argue, for example, that I misjudged consensus, or that I misunderstood a policy, I will listen attentively to your reasoning", and "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?" and "I get that as a "closing Admin", you want to add "warnings" and such to demonstrate that you aren't taking sides. That's fine, but there isn't going to be a lot of utility in warning me to not do what I haven't done in the first place. Please tell me, what useful cautionary advice am I supposed to glean from your warning when you don't refer to anything I've actually done, or would ever do?" Rather than give "a detailed and reasonable response" as you claim, you instead doubled-down on your unsubstantiated "warning message" attack by repeating, "you think you are right and it excuses "edit warring ... what you've written above is simply an explanation of how you were in the right. You don't seem to understand that being right and editing disruptively are not mutually exclusive ... the argument is about whether your edits were excusable because you were right on the content underlying it". And once again, you didn't offer a single pointer to actual supporting evidence. And I "heard" it perfectly, thank you. Then you edit-warred to keep your "unsubstantiated commentary about an editor" in place, and I briefly joined you in that edit-war by reverting you once. How much easier would it have been to simply redact or rewrite your problematic warning once you discovered your "when you think you are right" speculation about an editor's motivations to be not only unsupportable, but actually offensive? Nobody likes to be told they are wrong, I get that, but I'm having difficulty understanding all this vitriol. It's not like I'm launching a Rubin-esque action against you (or Swarm, for that matter), I simply requested that you guys either let me in on this apparently top-secret evidence you are using to justify your comments about a fellow editor's character and motivations - so that something productive can come of it, or redact the attacks. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:46, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

GoldenRing, just above you said, To clarify my own support, it is very much predicated on Xenophrenic not dropping the stick. It's not looking likely, since he thinks he already has and I caused this whole thing somehow. So, if I understand you correctly, you'll withdraw your support for sanctions if I stop insisting that you provide substantiating evidence and (again) step away from this discussion? Is that a path for closure here? Xenophrenic (talk) 21:36, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand how you can say this with a straight face while also, above, describing editing a closure of a discussion about yourself to change the terms of a warning in that closure as "just two policy-compliant edits." You have obviously heard nothing that anyone has said here. Have you found anyone yet who agrees that my close was a personal attack? Have you found anyone yet who agrees that, even if for the sake of an argument you accept the close did contain a personal attack, editing the closing statement and not asking for review at this noticeboard was the correct way forward? As far as I can tell you have not. I explicitly asked for review on those two questions since you refused to do so yourself and the consensus is pretty clear that (a) the close did not constitute a personal attack and (b) editing it yourself was completely inappropriate (if there is someone other than Xenophrenic here who doesn't agree with those two points, please do say so). And yet you continue to describe your actions as "policy-compliant." We have a behavioural guideline that addresses exactly this point: WP:IDHT. GoldenRing (talk) 17:15, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose I see lots of claims, accusations and selective/partial-truth 'interpretations' of events from the accusing parties, but few seem to want to examine/paint a complete picture (which involves examining the policy offenses indicated at the base of all this).

As already noted by Johnuniq, User:Xenophrenic is alone against a fairly-well organised group of apologists/evangelists seeking to use Misplaced Pages to trumpet to the world the 'truth' about the 'evils of atheism'... not only is one contributor no match for them, they don't play fair at all, which must be rather frustrating to anyone seeking to uphold[REDACTED] policy against this.

One cannot demand sanctions against a policy-upholding contributor because they are 'annoying', especially when the accuser is too lazy/biased/'saving-face'-entrenched to examine/present the whole picture.

Question/verify everything; even this. TP ✎ ✓ 22:41, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

IPv6 rangeblock

I just blocked this range, based on the last two IP addresses at Super Mario Land. I cannot find a "damage calculator" for IPv6 addresses, so I'm dropping this here in case someone wants to tell me I blocked the entire SE USA or whatever. Ferret, you have run into this person too, and there's a ton more IPs (I suppose you can drop down the rabbit hole with this list). In other words, if these or others aren't included in the range I blocked and it needs to be expanded, go ahead and jump on in. I'm trying to learn this stuff. Oh, DoRD, I was trying to impress someone in the car the other day, editing from my phone, and guess what--ran into your rangeblock again. ;) Drmies (talk) 17:49, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

• Yamaguchi, you too... Drmies (talk) 17:50, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
• This was my first run in with the user, noticed because they hit multiple articles on my watchlist. Once I saw they had four warnings already and how extensive, I blocked and started cleanup. (Thanks to all the others who helped revert). For anyone who hasn't looked yet, the IP edits the leads of articles and removes the usual article title formatting, Nihongo templates, etc. -- ferret (talk) 18:03, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
• The /67 on the end is better off being /64 (although in this case it did the job). Effectively, with IPv6 a /64 address is usually one editor. You only need to worry about blocking the entire USA when you get to /32 or below ;-) Black Kite (talk) 19:16, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
• Black Kite beat me to it. Tweak your block to a /64 instead of /67 and you'll be sure to get everything that guy can access at the moment. Stick to blocking /64s and you'll be absolutely fine with collateral. You made a rangeblock! I'm so proud of you! :-) Katie 19:21, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Oh thank you Katie! This means a lot. Drmies (talk) 21:02, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
• Yep, what Katie and Black Kite said. Non-wireless broadband is almost always parceled out as a /64. And Drmies, that serves you right for trying to edit without logging in. ;) ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:38, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
• The "67" came out of this rangeblock tool...it's linked on Meta...hold on...this tool. Just saying. Thank you all for your help. I was surprised to find this was a fairly prolific vandal, doing his business over a few days. Drmies (talk) 21:02, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  • It's a poor workman who blames his tools :) --S Philbrick(Talk) 22:03, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
    • The tool did its job correctly - it identified the smallest range containing 2 specific IPs. That a larger range should be blocked is not something the tool is designed for. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:37, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Unblock request for User:BlackAmerican

Statement from User:BlackAmerican

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

I plan to work on Japanese Major League Baseball players who don't have a page (which is extensive https://en.wikipedia.org/List_of_Nippon_Professional_Baseball_players_(M) ). I also want to work on individuals relevant to black history, and some martial artists. I am requesting a standard offer. as per Alex Shih. I have passed a checkuser to prove that I have not been sockpuppeting. I have had some positive contributions to[REDACTED] including the creation of over 300 standalone articles (not deleted). I will produce articles on underrepresented groups that continue to not be heard on[REDACTED] for reasons including systematic bias. I believe that a 6 month probationary period would be fair to show that I will be an asset to wikipedia. As can be seen by the AN, there is bad blood on the part of TGS towards me. I have been blamed for a number of things including his own sockpuppeting. where extensive proof by multiple and him being lectured about it . I will not engage him or others and will stay away from situations that could cause me to be reblocked. I do ask that we be banned from interaction from each other or going into articles that the other edits at. People go to jail and after time they learn their lesson. Why is time treated differently as a punishment here? Not editing on[REDACTED] for 6 months has taught me that it is a gift to be here and I will not take it for granted.

In conclusion, I will abide by the terms of the standard offer and be a better editor. BlackAmerican (talk) 02:10, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

(Copied from User talk:BlackAmerican, Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:39, 16 October 2017 (UTC))

@TheGracefulSlick, Alex Shih, Ad Orientem, Blackmane, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, Od Mishehu, Mendaliv, Dlohcierekim, and Dennis Brown: Just a ping to everyone who has commented so far to make sure they know this is here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:45, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

There's a new request now at User talk:BlackAmerican#Standard Offer, and some resolution to it is needed. So, Community, do we support or oppose an unblock? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:55, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

• Strong oppose - In the strongest possible terms. If anyone needs a refresher, BlackAmerican is CrazyAces489 -- the same user who harassed me, wasted the community's time for months, and never accepted any responsibility for his actions (and still hasn't). When CrazyAces created content, he never adhered to the advice of several experienced editors, deflecting it with the excuse "I create so others can contribute". I promised CA back in January I would support his unblock if he admitted to his actions. Instead he avoided the issue and eventually went back to blaming others. He is a total timesink who I am convinced is just here to troll us one last time.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:14, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

  @TheGracefulSlick: Do you have anything to say in response to CrazyAces489/BlackAmerican's accusations that you were multiply voting with socks to have articles deleted (for example, using User:ALongStay)? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:18, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

  Boing! said Zebedee no disrespect but why? Where is the relevance? I admitted to my mistake, apologized to those affected, and I hope after a year removed from the incident that I have proven I am of value to the community. That, I believe, is the major difference between me and CA, and why I am still editing today.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:34, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

  Just for clarity for others considering this, as it does seem like an issue of contention between you. Oh, and for the record, I'm staying neutral on the unblock question. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:04, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose: (edit conflict) I am against standing offer to this user based on several concerns. The user have submitted several unblock requests back in July/August, basically repeating the same short and vague rationale about having served the time, which is never a valid rationale without valid supporting arguments. I am all about giving rope to blocked users, but it's really difficult to justify these ropes when the competence/clue is simply not there. The current request is pretty much identical again to the previous request, despite of being nearly two months apart, and despite of being told to rewrite the request. Alex Shih 15:23, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
• Weak Support mostly per ROPE and my belief that permanent banishment should be very rarely imposed. That said, this editor has a problematic history and I would support a speedy re-block at the first sign of serious trouble. Also the editor needs to be put on notice that if they are re-blocked that the next a standard offer that gets serious consideration will be on the day after they start building snowmen in the hot stinky bad place. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:36, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

• Ad Orientem is this the type of person you want to give another chance? And yes, if you have doubts, that is CA. Ask Bishonen and you can confirm that is one of the few IPs he used to evade his first (or second?) block.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:01, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

• Ack. Yeah, that's a bridge too far for me. Especially if they have never accepted responsibility or apologized. I withdraw my weak support. Under the circumstances they just need to find another hobby. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:26, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

• Yeah...no per Alex Shih. Blackmane (talk) 06:39, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • In light of their updated unblock request， I'd be willing to change my !vote to somewhat support. When an editor makes a SO appeal or even a regular appeal of an indefinite block the community expects a clear course of action on what they intend to do should they be allowed to return and how they intend to avoid the previous behaviour. I wouldn't say I'm 100% convinced but probably just enough to give a bit more rope. Blackmane (talk) 14:40, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
• Comment No opinion on the merits or otherwise of the appeal. But can the Graceful Slick withdraw and strike their comment ("Strong oppose") above? I'm not sure it washes particularly well to !vote against someone for socking, etc, when one has done precisely the same thing for much the same reason; viz to win an argument. Cheers, — fortunavelut luna(Currently not receiving (most) pings, sorry) 06:47, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • To be totally fair, GS has already explained a critical difference between herself and BA - namely, admitting one's own actions, taking responsibility for them, and apologizing to anyone affected. GS said that CA never accepted any responsibility for his actions (and still hasn't), and that she would support his unblock if he admitted to his actions. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:19, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Weak oppose (see below) per Alex Shih. An unblock under WP:SO is not something that is automatically earned based on the expiration of time. The requestor's statement of why a SO unblock should be granted, as well as any interaction with the reviewing administrator, are at least as important in considering whether to grant the SO unblock as is the passage of time. This is because it is usually the only way we have of measuring the requestor's current maturity and understanding that what he or she did to earn the block is not to be repeated. The burden is on the requestor to show that a SO unblock is merited, and I do not believe this editor has satisfied that burden. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 07:38, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Also, a procedural note: I believe if this discussion closes as anything other than unblock, the indef converts to a formal community ban per WP:CBAN. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 03:22, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
    • I believe you are correct as per Editors who are or remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community are considered "banned by the Misplaced Pages community", and any future unblock request would need to be referred back to the community. And that is how I would close it if there is no consensus to unblock. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:45, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Updated my !vote to a weak oppose following the statement by BA above. It's fairly contrite and hits a lot of the points I mentioned earlier. To be sure, I'm fairly on the fence here, but the space wasted on discussing TGS's conduct keeps me from crossing over to support. People on Misplaced Pages aren't required to like one another, but we're expected to keep it professional. The "counteroffer" of an interaction ban doesn't move me either; had BA demonstrated the requisite maturity and understanding of why his past actions were unacceptable, I would honestly have thought an interaction ban to be unnecessary. And, of course, the focus on the passage of time is unhelpful. We don't want to know how long it's been since you were blocked; we want to know how you've grown in that time, either as a person or in terms of editing elsewhere. I'm just not seeing it. Sorry. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 11:59, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
• 'poor idea' In reviewing the user talk pages, I see no indication now that user will not continue to edit problematically.Dlohcierekim (talk) 09:22, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
• Comment: To add onto what User:Mendaliv said re: BA's "current maturity and understanding ," in December I inquired about the relationship to the previous accts here to which their response was to delete the question (plus quite a few other notices) and respond on my dynamic-IP talk page that "My old ex-roommate, took me to a edit-a-thon in Harlem. and showed me how to edit. That is the furthest of my relation." They show promise re: creating stubs, but their writing ability isn't quite there yet; nor is their integrity. Sorry. rgrds. --64.85.216.137 (talk) 22:11, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
• No as the interests of Misplaced Pages are simply not served with this individual having access to writing. The history is such that I doubt an unblock will ever happen. Some people simply do not have the right temperament nor ability to work with others that is required. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:30, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
• No Nothing on the user's talk page shows me that they are here to edit constructively. Alex Shih nails it right on the head. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:20, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - BlackAmerican unsurprisingly your latest statement brings me no assurance. I don't have any "bad blood" with you; I just wanted you to accept responsibility for your actions. I told you several times: spell out what you did wrong, volunteer to submit drafts to AfC, and create for quality, not quantity. But even still, whether it is an act of defiance or ignorance, you are blaming others and putting an anomalous amount of emphasis on my behavior from over a year ago. I believe you have a fixation on me evident from the number of sockpuppets and IPs you controlled to harass me but you need to change your attitude hastily -- this SO request is your last chance.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:58, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
• change to support after reconsidering I think an IBAN between TGS and BlackAmerican is needed. IMHO, TGS, please drop the stick.23:17, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Dlohcierekim what stick? I was pinged back to this discussion. Is it not alright to clarify I have no animosity toward CA despite his harassment? Please take more time to consider the situation before making such a comment. Thanks.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:55, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I actually agree with Dlohcierekim that you ought to drop the stick and leave this to other editors. I am concerned by your comment above, where you say, I just wanted you to accept responsibility for your actions. I told you several times: spell out what you did wrong, volunteer to submit drafts to AfC, and create for quality, not quantity. . . . this SO request is your last chance. The reason I find this statement concerning is because of the focus on satisfying your demands. I presume you don't intentionally mean it this way, but it comes off as suggesting that you should be given satisfaction prior to the lifting of BA's ban. This would not be correct. It is not your standards against which we measure BA's improvement, it is the consensus of the discussants as to what is reasonable. On top of that, you're downright wrong that this specific SO request is BA's last chance; BA could absolutely request a SO in the future after this one is rejected. While BA's conduct is his own responsibility, if it looks like your conduct is inflaming his, I think it would be proper to consider a two-way IBAN. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 00:40, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Mendaliv they weren't demands. They were considerations for a successful unblock appeal. And I honestly thought if this SO failed, a cite ban would be the next step hence my "last chance" remark. I am not going to have my intentions wrongfully interpreted nor am I accepting any responsibility for "inflaming" his conduct. That comment is totally out of bounds; my actions never "inflamed" him to joke about my deceased brother, to create poor content, and evade his block. Do whatever you want with CrazyAces, BlackAmerican, Negroleaguehistorian, or whatever he wants to go by, I am done here.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:09, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

You may disagree with me, but it is for the best that you step back from this discussion. Thanks for doing so. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 08:35, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

(Copied from User talk:BlackAmerican. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:13, 17 October 2017 (UTC))

• Strong oppose. I was initially indifferent, perhaps leaning support, but the ongoing comments focusing on TGS suggest that this editor hasn't let go of past disputes. They're focusing on editors and making baseless claims about those editors. (In particular, it's not "casting aspersions" to note you've been disruptive in the past. That's a fact.) I don't see anything good coming from unblocking. ~ Rob₁₃ 14:31, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
• Comment: I agree, this last response isn't a good sign. Had BA come back and taken the higher road, ignoring or mostly ignoring everything TGS said, I could've looked past a lot. Engaging like this has torpedoed BA's case, at least in my eyes. I'm not as concerned about the misconception that a SO is just a matter of not socking for six months and promising to be good. In fact, these are seen as necessary conditions to a SO unblock, not sufficient ones. The decision is highly discretionary in the end. I don't think BA's arguments on this point are evidence of an entitlement attitude, just a misunderstanding of policy. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 23:17, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

George Mason University

I just deleted a slew of essays in user sandboxes, complete with GMU honor statements and essay-for-college headers. Has anyone else run across this before? Is there something I don't know but should? Is this a perennial issue and could you direct me to relevant discussion? Thanks, Dlohcierekim (talk) 09:11, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Might want to ask over at the Education noticeboard if someone more involved with educational outreach has a point of contact with GMU to see if this is part of an actual course (and if so, if there's some way the educational outreach people can help the course instructor). — /Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 10:35, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Would welcome input at Misplaced Pages:Education_noticeboard#George_Mason_University. — Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:01, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

• We are not interested in the "GMU Honor Code" - it cuts no ice here. If a page is a copyvio it gets zapped, honour code declaration or not. But these were not copyvios. I have zapped them as classic student-essay forks of existing articles. Let the teacher who suggested them, declare themselves here and be roundly criticised. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:32, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Amen. I will continue to U5 the things unless otherwise directed.Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:15, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Merger of Education noticeboard

Hello all, for anyone interested in participating/closing the discussion, there is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Education noticeboard#Propose to close/merge Misplaced Pages:Education noticeboard/Incidents to this noticeboard that could use some attention. Thank you for you time! Alex Shih 05:23, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Page creation protection: Extended-confirmed

Hey admins, is this a new standard: to set protection on repeatedly recreated spam pages to extended-confirmed, rather than sysop? Just wondering because I see it as an option, though I've continued using sysop but haven't been an admin all that long. If the protection is set to extended-confirmed, is the creating user expected to consult with the protecting admin prior to creating a page through the protection? Ivanvector (/_Edits) 13:00, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't think we have exact parameters on what protection to use in such cases. I generally don't do it as I think that extendedconfirmed is being overused - although I don't perform that many protections period. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:59, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

No, this is definitely not a new standard. Just use your own judgement.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:38, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

• I want to say I've done this once, on an article title that had been deleted a few times. I've not fully thought it out, but it seems it could be useful in limited circumstances, where an admin wants to disallow one particular person (or their socks, or just new people) from creating the same problematic article, but trusts there is a chance a real article is possible with an experienced editor. It just saves the step of the experienced editor having to ask permission from the protecting admin, etc. Again, most articles wouldn't get this, but some titles could arguably warrant this level of protection. Or as Ymblanter says, just use your own judgement. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:15, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

• I think I agree with Dennis' perspective. I don't think it's normally a good idea (spammers can get up to EC with a little effort), but I agree that it can be good for combating sockmasters when an article might be warranted. So in other words, "don't do it most of the time, but don't think that it's automatically a bad idea". Nyttend (talk) 23:25, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Extended confirmed protection policy 2, closed December 2016, established that admins can use ECP page creation at their discretion. ---- Patar knight - /_{contributions} 22:53, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Could an administrator please block my old doppelganger accounts?

Title explains it all, really - the accounts are as follows:

• Chessnaught555
• Chesnaught55
• Chesnaught5555
• Chesnaught
• Ches0555
• Chespin555
• Chesnought555

The reason I would like these accounts blocked (indef and TPA please, so "hard block") is because I obviously no longer go by the name of Chesnaught555, thus making these accounts pointless. I do have doppelganger accounts based on the username "Patient Zero", which IIRC, I have gone by since May 2016, but please do not block these ones. Thank you in advance to whoever does this for me. Patient Zero 13:17, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 13:21, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Primefac! Patient Zero 08:09, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Harassment

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

If I am being harassed by a fellow Wikipedian, where do I report it? Thanks.--Biografer (talk) 15:45, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Biografer, it would go to WP:ANI, generally. If this is the preamble to an actual request I'll shift it over there. Primefac (talk) 15:52, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Biografer, given that Nihlus seems to be simply giving you some good advice you don't want to hear, rather than actually harassing you, the place you go is probably nowhere, either that or perhaps away form the keyboard for a few minutes to grab a cup of tea and calm down a bit. GMG 15:55, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

@Primefac: Thanks. Will report him here shortly. @GreenMeansGo: Its not the thing that I don't want to hear him is the numerous warnings and their tone that irritates me. Imagine if your talkpage will be bombarded with contradicting information. One user says yes, you can welcome editors the other says no not in this way and then when you decide to try to warn vandals no you need to welcome them in some fashion. Get the point?--Biografer (talk) 16:11, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

But you are not being harassed. -Roxy the dog. bark 16:15, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Let's not put the cart before the horse. Question has been asked and answered, no need to make a big deal out of it before we make a big deal out of it at ANI. Primefac (talk) 16:18, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I predict this will go swimmingly for OP. GMG 16:33, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I am being harassed. Just take a look here. We are on the verge of discussing it civilly, but now I am accused of harassment, which happened because he provoke all this war of words. At least I believe that he harassed @Rich Farmbrough:. Going to people talkpages simply to get his point across is harassment. Inviting all the editors to gang up on me, is in fact, harassment too. And yes, lets go to AN/I and try to solve it there, because I am completely fed up with editors that gathered here to prevent somebody to make an edit that is no big deal, to be honest.--Biografer (talk) 18:12, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

It's difficult to know when the line between being a well meaning pain-in-the-butt crosses to harassment. I am pretty sure that Nihlus means well, and they do make some valid points (and some invalid ones). I agree with Biographer that they aren't made in the most constructive way, and this is really most of the problem here. I suspect that it will be hard now for Nihlus and Biographer to engage constructively, and would advise them both to leave each other alone. I also suspect this advice will fall on deaf ears, but I hope not. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:36, 16 October 2017 (UTC).

I've asked Biografer to leave it for now and I'll look over it and have a talk to them tomorrow about it, and they seem happy to go along with that. And yes, I definitely agree with your advice that they leave each other alone. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:55, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm more than capable of editing constructively after heated moments with editors; I get over things very quickly. Just ask Primefac and GreenMeansGo. @Rich Farmbrough and Boing! said Zebedee: I'm not fond of the assumption that I cannot engage constructively or the recommendation that I leave a user alone merely because they've made a mess. Nihlus 19:13, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Also, someone should have notified me of this discussion. Nihlus 19:14, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

My only reason for agreeing that you should probably leave Biografer alone now is that your well-meaning efforts aren't working - so how about you leave it to me now, tomorrow? (And yes, someone indeed should have informed you - I'm sorry I didn't realise you had not been informed.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:21, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm willing to pass the buck; however, it should be noted that eight editors have made similar comments on this user's talk page. This is not something I was going rogue on. Nihlus 19:25, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arthur Rubin closed

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

• Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs) is desysopped for repeatedly not meeting the community expectations and responsibilities of administrators as outlined in WP:ADMINACCT. He may regain the administrative tools at any time via a successful request for adminship.

For the Arbitration Committee, Mdann52 (talk) 16:35, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arthur Rubin case closed

Range blocker needed

Hey range blockers, if any of you are around right now, I got a huge-ass list that I need some help with. Please drop me an email or carrier pigeon, or hit me up on tindr. Your help is appreciated. Drmies (talk) 16:44, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

• Email me (or just post it here, if I'm going to block it it's not exactly secret). Cheers, Black Kite (talk) 17:43, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks--I'll email, instead of posting here and showing my ignorance of range technicalities. :) Drmies (talk) 17:44, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
• Nihlus, thanks for your note--I appreciate it. Drmies (talk) 17:52, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Biografer

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

Some eyes and/or block(s) may be warranted at the situation at User talk:Biografer#Aspirations... Also, I don't really like being called a _________. We have got enough of this drama. Sorry, Boeing. Regards:)Winged Blades of Godric 17:11, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Maybe he saw my previous welcomes to other editors and decided to appreciate my hard work (I treat it as such).--Biografer (talk) 17:18, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

And as for drama (drama which was caused by Nihlus by the way, not me), I don't appreciate this tone directed at me here. And as for @Boing! said Zebedee:, he and @Rich Farmbrough: are the only good editors here who understand me. I feel sorry that Rich need to endeavor this hatred on this site. :( Its always the good editors who are subject of guilt.--Biografer (talk) 17:25, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Biografer, I wish you'd held off on your welcoming until we'd had the chat I planned - as I just said on your talk page, I'll be busy for 2 or 3 hours now, but maybe it might be better to wait and see how this pans out here. But one thing I will say now is that "You can block me, for what I care. I will create a different account and will continue" is absolutely the wrong way to respond here. (Oh, and it's Boing, not Boeing - I'm springy but I can't fly. ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:28, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

OK. I removed it for my own sake.--Biografer (talk) 17:30, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

• I think a TBAN against making semi-automated welcome messages may be necessary. Spamming thousands of welcome messages in the way Biografer is doing isn't helpful to the encyclopedia; some of the recipients appear to have made reasonable contributions but others have not (e.g. Zach9999 (talk · contribs) and Chris Paul (talk · contribs)), I would expect the template used to distinguish between these. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:36, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

This would be a good time for Biografer to agree that they're going to be more careful going forward and only welcome users who have made good faith contributions, rather than welcoming users indiscriminately. Hint hint. GMG 17:39, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

@Power~enwiki: Considering that you are new too (I decided not to welcome you, because I didn't knew what to expect from you at the time), I would like to say that while Zach9999 and Chris Paul did some unconstructive edits, they stopped after the first warning. What would you all say about that?--Biografer (talk) 17:43, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

clerk note - power~enwiki has been here since 2009 Primefac (talk) 17:48, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

My account dates to December 2003, but I've only been an active editor since April 29 of this year. I'm not sure I believe that he recalls deciding not to welcome me, the only batch of welcomes he has around then was on April 23. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:51, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

In any case you were definitely welcomed back in 2003, long before Biografer had a chance to do so themselves. –72 _(t) 17:58, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

• There are issues with Biografer's conduct, but I'm also shocked by the message Winged Blades of Godric left on his talk page. That's very out of character for you, Godric. You basically taunted him. The comment clearly wasn't going to de-escalate things. I do not think any action is needed right now. It will be the next time you mention Nihlus to deflect from your own behavior, Biografer. ~ Rob₁₃ 17:46, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

@BU Rob13:--Yeah! On some retrospection, the first line was harsh.Apologies.But, that being said, I was tempted to write it seeing his illustrious t/p and in-general behaviour towards everybody who objected his methods and a stubborn objection to stop his welcoming(s),( even temporarily, at least until, he had a conversation with Boing) and felt that we were far past the point of any de-escalation.I also feel that there is a very real need to T-ban from his welcoming sprees, having read his justification of welcoming LTAs at this difference and his in-general behavior at this edit and his previous retaliatory welcomings which led to a warning from TNT.Winged Blades of Godric 18:11, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Biografer: Twinkle has templates for welcoming users whose contributions are non-constructive. You might consider using those. I am a fan of {{welcomelaws}} whenever I warn users for copyright violations if they don't have a talk page. There are also {{welcomevandal}} and {{welcometest}}, which might have been more appropriate in the above cases. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:49, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
• Well, if I will toss them around like crazy, you wont like it either. I know that as soon as I started warning vandals, I again got into the hot water.--Biografer (talk) 17:57, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: And in your opinion, the way how Winged Blades of Godric taunted me is civil. It's a shame if you think so. :(--Biografer (talk) 17:57, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that human editors are supposed to use some measure of thought when it comes to their edits. If we don't, then our editing literally falls under exactly the same policies as editing done by bots, and as others have pointed out, having a welcome bot has been proposed and failed to find consensus many times. Someone doesn't have to be a super duper editor to get a welcome, but it's best to check and make sure they're not an outright vandal. I normally welcome any editor who starts out with good faith contributions, even if those contributions get reverted for being less than helpful. But if someone is an outright vandal, your time and attention (because who knows, you could be the only one to catch it for hours or even days) should be spent warning them, explaining why their edits are nonconstructive if they're receptive to an explanation, and escalating to WP:AIV if necessary. The reason you got into "hot water" is because welcoming vandals tends to run counter to the efforts of editors who are active trying to discourage them. The easiest way to avoid hot water is to get out of the pot, not fight to stay in it. GMG 18:04, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: Understood. Now, if Nehlus would have explained it to me in the same way as you or @TonyBallioni: did, non of this AN/I thing would have happened. :) PS: I'm not blaming Nihlus for my edits, I blame him for conduct which was rather cold and unwelcoming toward me as a new editor. The thing is, is that when Rich showed up, he gave me a tip (which maybe wasn't as helpful), but he at least was kind enough to explain it in a less provocative way.--Biografer (talk) 18:30, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Nobody's perfect, but if you're gonna be hanging around vandals, you'll probably end up with a lot thicker skin before it's all over. That may be part of why some of our more experienced vandal fighters sometimes might come off harsher than they intend. We just want you to use your efforts in ways that are most productive, and can't be mistaken for running counter to the efforts of others. But you should take seriously that, having popped up on the radar twice here in as many days, if problems persist, it is very likely someone is going to start seriously pushing for a topic ban from welcoming anyone at all, and it seems increasingly likely that they'll get it. That's just more hassle for everyone, when the easiest thing to do is try to fix the issue and carry on. GMG 18:46, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Honestly, at this point, Biografer is approaching WP:CIR/WP:NOTHERE territory as it has been explained numerous times how to welcome users properly, when and where to welcome users, and how to warn users when they vandalize pages. He has responded with personal attacks, aspersions, deflections about how he is the victim, and WP:POINTy and inappropriate welcomes of users all because he got mad. I'm surprised he has not been blocked yet. His talk page is flooded with notices about welcoming users and he still does not get it, either by choice or incapability. Regardless, either one is problematic. @Winged Blades of Godric: Those messages were a little uncalled for and a massive trout is needed for them. @Biografer: For once, take responsibility for your actions and stop blaming other people for your shortcomings. Also, stop deflecting your inability to take criticism by disparaging me or my comments as if I was the only one who mentioned anything to you. You had numerous people explaining the same thing to you over the last three months; I just happened to be the first one who refused to buy your excuses. Nihlus 18:40, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

@Nihlus: OK, ok. It just happened that when you came, you were like the last straw. I don't think I was pointy, and I think me and you just misunderstood each other. Its human, right?--Biografer (talk) 18:49, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

@Biografer: I understood you clearly, which is exactly why I made the comment above. Nihlus 18:50, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

@Nihlus: Well, I hope nobody minds if I will write some stub articles here about notable subjects? Any objections? At least that will prove that I am here to contribute (should have done that before to be honest). :)--Biografer (talk) 18:53, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

If you're looking to prove you're here in good faith, maybe you can improve Government or Architecture? That said, I'm not worried about your good-faith, just your ability to respond to feedback. Lobbyists4Good (talk · contribs) looks to be an invalid username promoting a non-notable organization, maybe you should have commented on some of that? power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:56, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

@Power~enwiki: OK. So, user Lobbyist4Good wrote an article in a sandbox, therefore I believe that he is exempt from being warned because maybe he is just doing test edit (and found a rather good place to do it). A lot of our users do test edits on articles themselves resulting into vandalism warnings and blocks. The safe place, if you don't know what is acceptable under your (our) policies, is to write it in a sandbox. As soon as the article will be completed, it might be considered for AFC. If the AFC editors would agree that its a fairly notable subject, then it will be moved to main space. Sounds OK thing to do in my opinion. Any questions about my reasoning?--Biografer (talk) 19:07, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

It's an obvious violation of WP:ORGNAME. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:09, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

@Power~enwiki: Not if the AFC editors decline it. I seen that some people post their articles to AFC and then get either accepted or declined depending on content.--Biografer (talk) 19:15, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Did you read the link? "The following types of usernames are not permitted because they are considered promotional: Usernames that unambiguously represent the name of a company, group, institution or product (e.g. TownvilleWidgets, MyWidgetsUSA.com, TrammelMuseumofArt)." power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:17, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

@Power~enwiki: Geez Louiz! I was assuming you were referring to the content of the article, not the user. Yes, his username is promotional (I should have reported him, sorry). Plus, I got confused it with WP:OR.-Biografer (talk) 20:14, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure your word is enough. I think a topic ban of welcoming users for a couple months should help. This can be voluntary or community placed; however, both are equally enforceable with blocks (WP:PROBATION). Nihlus 19:05, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

@Nihlus: Of course, trust was never thought to a Wikipedian before. Got it. As for @There'sNoTime: comment regarding As I was pinged - you all need to cool off, I am rather chilled right now. We talked here and it seems like everything is fine... Don't you all agree?--Biografer (talk) 19:12, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Wow @There'sNoTime: Where do you live that there are Morrisons instead of Walmarts?--Biografer (talk) 19:18, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

The most United of Kingdoms - anywho, and I mean this sincerely and with the most respect I can muster after queuing for half an hour to buy food, I think this discussion would be better served by everyone disengaging and doing something else... There's plenty to do -- There'sNoTime 19:25, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

@There'sNoTime: In these least United of States, I waited half an hour for ramen... GAB 19:39, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

@GeneralizationsAreBad: Where in the world do you live where buying a Ramen is creating long lines? Either way, I was waiting in line for 2 hours to buy a game on Black Friday.--Biografer (talk) 20:17, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

• Sigh, I really wanted to try to help Biografer in a friendly way. But no, you couldn't wait and you had to escalate it to the drama boards. Biografer might be still learning things, and some welcoming might have been less than ideal. But I can understand why Biografer is feeling under fire here, as I see some warnings and tellings-off that are out of proportion to the relatively minor issues we're looking at here - and I can see why they might be feeling as if they can do nothing right. As for posting welcome messages on talk pages of vandals - hey, I do it too, usually in addition to a warning (and I've been here for around 10 years and an admin for 6). I usually only do it when it's minor vandalism - probably a youngster just having a play, that kind of thing. But I hope it makes people thing "OK, I got caught with that bit of petty vandalism, but they're welcoming me if I want to be constructive" and it might help turn someone round - and if not, it's done no harm. Come on people, get off Biografer's back a little here - or at least, just tone down the aggression a bit. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:25, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

  That ignores my original point of indiscriminate spamming of welcome messages to the tune of 24,000 times. We're hardly being aggressive. The problem is Biografer continues to dig a deeper hole with each comment he makes. Nihlus 19:29, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

  I offered to help with that, but I didn't get a chance. Even if he wastes time welcoming thousands of people, what actual harm has been done that needs such urgent attention that I couldn't have been allowed the time to try and help? Lots of people shouting the same things at him over and over again wasn't helping - can't you see that? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:43, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

  @Boing! said Zebedee: Let's get one thing straight: you didn't get the chance to help because of his actions, not mine. I can clearly see that Godric's comments were unhelpful to the situation, as I made that clear above in my initial comment. However, I'm firm in my belief that we are now beyond the point of helping or being able to see any improvement in his edits. Nihlus 19:50, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

  So you get to decide unilaterally that there's no hope and that I am not allowed to try to help. Lovely. Sometimes this place seriously pisses me off. I'm giving up for the night - if you lot don't get your pound of flesh, or if someone with more sense see fit to close this, I might try to help Biografer tomorrow - but I can't do that while trying to fight off a mob at the same time. (And please, there's no need to ping me - I know where this place is.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:57, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

  Where did I unilaterally decide anything? I gave my viewpoint on the matter as a member of this community and someone who has already tried to help this individual out before. Not a single person has told you that you cannot try to help out this person, so your mischaracterization of this situation is rather odd. Nihlus 20:08, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

  Okay then guys, might be worth wrapping this one up eh? -- There'sNoTime 20:09, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

  Would support such wrapping. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:30, 17 October 2017 (UTC).
  

  Ooh, wrapping, its almost Christmas -- There'sNoTime 20:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

  Wrap. GMG 20:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and I will report to you There'sNoTime) if I will have any concerns regarding welcoming. In fact, (if a block wont follow) I will go on Wikibreak to give you some time to cool off. I would like to thank @Boing! said Zebedee:, @TonyBallioni:, @GreenMeansGo: the closing admin @There'sNoTime: for civil discussion regarding my issue, and especially @Rich Farmbrough: who is becoming more like a brother to me.--Biografer (talk) 20:37, 17 October 2017 (UTC)in @There'sNoTime: for civil discussion regarding my issue, and especially @Rich Farmbrough: who is becoming more like a brother to me.--Biografer (talk) 20:37, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

• @There'sNoTime: No, I don't support it as nothing has come out of this yet. We will be right back here in a couple days when Biografer resumes. Nihlus 20:35, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

  Completely unethical on you part.--Biografer (talk) 20:37, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

  WP:SPADE. Nihlus 20:39, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Discussion about paid editing and blocking etc

Administrators may be interested in the discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Paid-contribution disclosure#Statement from a paid editor. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:45, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Proposal: Topic ban for Medeis / μηδείς

Proposal: topic ban Medeis / μηδείς from deleting, collapsing, or otherwise editing any comment posted by any other user on any of the reference desks. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:18, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Previous discussions:

• Misplaced Pages talk:Reference desk#Straw poll: Topic ban for Medeis / μηδείς
• Misplaced Pages talk:Reference desk/Archive 105#Proposal for a self-imposed ban on closing threads
• Misplaced Pages talk:Reference desk/Archive 126#WP:BLP and WP:NPOV in regard to controversial figures
• Misplaced Pages talk:Reference desk/Archive 127#User's many deletions and hats
• Misplaced Pages talk:Reference desk/Archive 127#Why has the RD become so quick to hat people's questions?
• Misplaced Pages talk:Reference desk/Archive 128#Where Do We Go from Here ?
• Misplaced Pages talk:Reference desk/Archive 128#This is not a BLP violation
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive956#Problematic behavior by User:Medeis at the reference desk

Medeis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Poll

• Support: as proposer. The previous discussions and the link to recent deletions say it all. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:18, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

• For the record, the reason I am not replying to Baseball Bugs is that I do not want to have any interaction with him. Responding only encourages more WP:BLUDGEONING. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:34, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose per previous reasoning. There are posts that should be removed ASAP and no argument has been presented to jusitfy M's ability to do that. OTOH this WP:HOUNDing of M needs to stop. MarnetteD|Talk 19:54, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. Let's look at one "problematic" deletion by Medeis as presented above, shall we? this discussion goes against all basic talk page guidelines we have, and Medeis should get a barnstar for deleting this. If this discusion is what most refdesk regulars want, then it is past time to simply delete the refdesks instead. Fram (talk) 20:20, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Fram failed to give the number of the edit he refers to on the above list. It is #11. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:15, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

One unintended purpose your list serves is to demonstrate the lack of vigilance by yourself and certain other members, for questions that have the potential to compromise Misplaced Pages itself: BLP violatons, requests for professional advice, etc. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:24, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Ha ha, that's a good one. That is a discussion. BLP does not apply, and the deletion was absurd. --Viennese Waltz 20:27, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

BLP does not apply? Strange, and here I was thinking that BLP applies everywhere on enwiki. And of course, discussion of living persons and our opinion of them and their idiocy or greatness is another thing we don't do at enwiki, as we are not a forum. I'll take that as "strike one" for abolishing the ref desk then? Fram (talk) 20:31, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Do whatever you want, that's what you're gonna do anyway. (More seriously: If you really believe you can take this response as a "strike one" for your plans of abolishing the ref desks, then there's not much more to be said. One diff chosen from one list from one user's allegedly problematic actions, and one response by one user to your one criticism to one diff is apparently all that's needed. Knock yourself out). ---Sluzzelin talk 20:40, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Fram is dead wrong on this. Nothing in our BLP policy even hints at deleting commentary -- even negative commentary - about the published statements of a public figure. I think that such commentary is a waste of time, but it is not deletable under WP:TPOC or WP:BLP. I believe that Fram's oft-expressed personal dislike for me may be clouding his judgement and causing him to take a position about BLP that is not found in any Misplaced Pages policy or guideline. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:08, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

No, it's you that's got it wrong. Yakking about a public figure's mental health is a blatant BLP violation, and removing that garbage was totally the right thing to do. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:12, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

It is black-letter Misplaced Pages policy that BLP applies in every nook-and-cranny of Misplaced Pages, including talk pages, and the commentary on them. From WP:BLP:

Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion ... This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages.

I don't see how the policy can state it any clearer than that. Contentious BLP material must be removed immediately, wherever it appears on Misplaced Pages. The Ref Desks are not excluded. Anyone arguing otherwise is misinformed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:52, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Seriously? You are actually claiming that asking "Is Donald Trump saying outrageous things a clever tactic meant to manipulate the media into not focusing as much attention on his actual policies?" is a BLP violation? Yes, one reply called Trump an idiot, but Medeis / μηδείς didn't delete just that one comment. She deleted the entire thread. The essays WP:BLPZEALOT and WP:CRYBLP have some excellent advice about what you are doing here. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:07, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: Please at least attempt not to make more of a fool of yourself than you are already doing, for your own sake. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:18, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Evasion noted. Your personal attacks won't distract the reader from noticing that you made a factual claim that is untrue. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:23, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

You can't seem to be able to recognize a trolling question when you see it. The OP's premise assumes facts not in evidence, and an answer to his actual question would require knowledge of what's in Trump's head. It's a ridiculous, POV-pushing, BLP-violating question. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:38, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support - The desks need more regulars working together and respecting collaborative process and consensus, and less of what amounts to shoot-from-the-hip vigilantism. Years of attempts to reason with Medeis have produced little improvement that I can see. It's her way or the highway, and that never flies with me (never mind that it violates Misplaced Pages policy). While her policing actions are not all bad, they are a clear net-negative in my view.
  As for unsubstantiated accusations of Guy Macon's hounding: Seven experienced editors, including four admins, have recently stated that WT:RD was the wrong venue for this discussion, even if non-binding. I fail to see how it can be hounding to follow their advice. Never mind that 8 experienced editors at WT:RD voiced support for a TBAN, lending significant legitimacy to the complaints against Medeis. Unless someone wants to allege a hounding conspiracy and call for sanctions against all 8 editors, such accusations are an abuse of WP:HOUND. In any event, such an accusation is pointless and unconstructive outside a separate boomerang discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:40, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - This is nothing more than the usual scapegoating (or bludgeoning, to use Macon's term) by certain users who look for a target every few months. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:29, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per Fram. I have noticed quite a lot of inappropriate forum chatter at the ref desks, and Fram's diff along with others I have seen shows that ref desk regulars often lack judgment about what is an appropriate usage of Misplaced Pages. It's likely that Medeis is wrong or stubborn on occasions, but the same applies doubled to many of the enthusiastic regulars. Johnuniq (talk) 03:12, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• With all due respect, you appear to be ignoring multiple violations of WP:TPOC. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:51, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• And you ignore the importance of not violating BLP rules and not allowing professional advice. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 04:37, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support - It doesn't look like Guy captured all of the many times many people have raised objections to Medeis's self-appointed refdesk curatorship. I don't think basing a support/oppose on the list of the 30 most recent is so helpful here, since some removals are appropriate. The problem is more visible in the discussions. If you search the refdesk talk archive and administrators' noticeboards archives for something like "medeis + hatting", you'll find an awful lot. I encountered it repeatedly shortly after stumbling across the refdesks 4-5 years ago. My frustration with not just Medeis's hatting but her persistent dismissal of objections is one of the reasons I couldn't bring myself to put my time there. Though, to be fair, it's less of a problem than the tendency of a couple other users to either answer every possible question with an inane response or to use the refdesks as a joke-around-with-friends social networking site. ...And that's why I wouldn't support a straight topic ban for the reference desks, since Medeis's responses to questions deemed acceptable are not the problem. Disclosure: I became involved in a couple of the threads from a few years ago and started this one (already linked above). — Rhododendrites \\ 03:56, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• I would also oppose a topic ban from the reference desks. Medeis / μηδείς should be allowed to ask and answer questions. It is the violation of WP:TPOC and the constant WP:CRYBLPing that is the problem, and a narrow topic ban from deleting, collapsing, or otherwise editing any comment posted by any other user is the correct solution. There are plenty of other editors who will remove any actual trolling, vandalism, and undisputed BLP violations. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:43, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• Removing BLP violations and requests for professional advice does not constitute censorship. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 04:39, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• I've no idea who or what you're replying to. — Rhododendrites \\ 04:50, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• Looks like it's time for my annual eye exam. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 13:23, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose, the reference desks are not a general forum, and curating them is a good thing (and if curation of the ref desks isn't covered by WP:TPOC, then that can be easily fixed). I am quite happy to see speculation on the motives of certain politicians removed, although I would prefer to call this "offtopic" instead of making this about BLP. —Kusma (t·c) 11:30, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support: This has been an ongoing - for years - issue, if nothing else, it would stop pointless fights over questions that aren't really causing problems. In the event that this user thinks something needs hatted/deleted, they can use the talkpage; it isn't like there aren't enough other regulars around for when something is an actual issue, and this would remove her from dealing with borderline cases, cases where she has been over zealous. The issue is not that none of her removals are good, but that a good bit are questionable; so that she has removed some questions that were worth removing does not seem to me to be a reason to support her having the ability to continue hatting/deleting - and, as this doesn't stop her from answering, it still enables her to make useful contributions. I would say that the average vandal/troll causes less issues because they are gone quickly, so I would make the case that despite doing some good, some of the time, the repeated problematic actions have, probably, caused more aggravation (over time) than 95% of the posts she removed/hatted legitimately - in short, she is, over time, more of a problem than most of the problems she has fixed, thus, if they were worth removing, then I think this power is worth removing from her.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 11:35, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - prefer the solution to cut the Gordian Knot and just eliminate the ref desks. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:28, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• It isn't an either/or situation. You could support eliminate the ref desks and support topic baning Medeis / μηδείς from comments posted by other users. that way, even if your preferred solution doesn't get consensus, you would at least have done some good. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:31, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• Strong Support for the topic ban. She's never shown any competence in knowing when to delete things, and shows no interest in learning, either. StuRat (talk) 17:37, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
• Opppse - All I get from Guy's list of diffs above is that the ref desk is out of control/apparently overrun with junior high school boys. This editor should be commended for placing some limits & trying to keep a lid on the nonsense, not topic banned. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:29, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - User:Fyddlestix - Most school districts in the United States have rebranded the schools as middle schools. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:59, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose - I have long thought that Medeis was a difficult editor of the Reference Desks. However, it appears that Guy Macon is over-reacting and is causing more trouble than Medeis. I would suggest closing this with a warning to both editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:59, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - Evidence is not persuasive. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:43, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. While in broad strokes, I generally support Medeis' policing of the RefDesk, I have found some of this editor's removals contentious in the past. I think a less aggressive approach would be welcomed by all. But I don't think the aggressiveness in itself rises to a level warranting a ban. On balance Medeis' work in this area is definitely a net positive. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:37, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support - Medeis has been too disruptive over the years and that they also do some good does not compensate for it. Other people can do a better job of anything they have done that is anywhere useful. There have been enough complaints and warnings. They should be banned from the reference desk. Dmcq (talk) 13:13, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  • How does tolerating BLP violations qualify as "doing a better job"? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 13:24, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
    • I can't say I think your presence has been useful either. Dmcq (talk) 19:02, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
      • Well, I must admit I don't hat or delete rule-violating questions as often as I should. But I do occasionally get thanked by OP's for providing useful info. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 19:06, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support. User consistently provokes controversy by closing/hatting/deleting content against policy. User has been informed politely, many times, over a period of several years of this, by a variety of editors. User pointedly ignores pleas to act according to published guidelines and community consensus. So when we see that asking/informing does not work, topic ban seems like the only option left. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:40, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support. User is a continual thorn in everyone's side. Has single handedly changed the Ref Desks from a place where people supported each other and had a pride in providing the service into one where this self-appointed pseudo-moderator will step in and trash entire threads, delete perfectly valid questions and generally behaves as judge, jury and executioner of things the (s)he doesn't like. This has been a pattern for YEARS and it's time to take a stand and end it. SteveBaker (talk) 17:14, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't find Medeis at all a problem. I've only seen Medeis act on threads that were problematic in some way. In the case talked about above, we have an opening question containing the terms "outrageous things", "clever tactic", and "manipulat the media". Those are highly subjective terms. In my opinion they are a recipe for debate. Bus stop (talk) 03:12, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

• Yes. I get that you don't like that question. I even agree with your reasons for not liking it and in fact I don't like it either. The problem is that you are perfectly fine with violating WP:TPOC and replacing that policy with "I can delete anything that I don't like". --Guy Macon (talk) 04:17, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

• BLP rules override talk page guidelines. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 04:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
• The reference desks are not a chat room. WP:FORUM might be applicable. You can't have a pristine, upstanding reference desk without people doing "housecleaning". It is not just Medeis who steps in to WP:HAT a part or all of a thread. My feeling is that I am OK with that as long as personal animus is not the motivation. In this case it is the sloppy political gibes that do not belong on the reference desk. What I see in that instance is Medeis trying to keep the reference desk operating within the realm of answering questions that can be answered, not on general discussion in which people alternatively defend and skewer the president. A thread like that could have gone on for a long time. Medeis had the wisdom to end it. This is a matter of opinion and sensitivity. You are citing WP:TPOC as if it spells out every possible situation that can arise. We have conflicting aims here: to not touch another person's writing, and to keep a reference desk functioning as it should—free of wandering "conversation". The problem was, as it often is, in the introductory question, because it serves as a reference point for all that follows. Bus stop (talk) 07:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support Medeis has over several years acted in a a high-handed and anti-collegiate way, has repeatedly proved unwilling or unable to engage in constructive debate about her actions, and seriously harmed the Reference Desks. SteveBaker puts it very well above. DuncanHill (talk) 04:27, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Allowing BLP violations to stand is much more harmful to Misplaced Pages than anything Medeis has done over time. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 04:48, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Do you want me to bring up the time she violated BLP by making false statements about me? I will, if it would help you Bugs. DuncanHill (talk) 04:56, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
      • Haven't you heard? BLP is only for deleting things you don't like, whether they are actually BLP violations or not. See WP:BLPZEALOT and WP:CRYBLP. They just twist the rules and keep asserting that things that are not BLP violations are BLP violations. If they tell that lie often enough, maybe someone will believe them. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:17, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
        • I actually kind of liked the Trump thing. But it's a BLP violation and had to go. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 07:02, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Time to close down the ref desks?

Am I being overly sensitive?

I'm editing with others in a tv article, The Gifted (TV series). While it seems kinda piddling, one of the actors in the series is Asian. The character this Asian portrays is a (lavender) Caucasian in the comic book from whence the series is derived. The last time the same comic book character was portrayed was also Asian.
The problem started when a quote was used by a contributor was parsed to suggest that the series actor was cast because she was the same race that the film actor was. The larger body of the quote is pretty clear in that opening opportunities for Asians in Hollywood allowed both the chance, not 'she was cast because the person prior to her was the same race, too.' While Whitewashing in film is a very real thing - something that the actor being quoted is very vocal about, she credits the presence of other Asians in both tv and film media with the chance for both herself and the previous actor to be cast.
The crossroads is that the few editors arriving at the RfC seem to want to portray the showrunners as racist goons inserting one Asian for another, thinking no one will know the difference.
I decided to come here to ask for a few more editors with exposure to these sorts of problems of race and parsing interpretation to come visit the article and offer insight. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:36, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

That seems to me to be to be accidental prejudice. There's a song somewhere that goes "Everyone's a little bit racist..."

It isn't serious, but maybe comment that this might cause offence and revert it. Thanks for bringing this up. If this downspirals into an edit war, mention it here and I will take full responsibility for the idea that started it. TomBarker23 (talk) 21:45, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Possible FL error?

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

Does anyone know why List of awards and nominations received by Zara Larsson has the FL star on the article although it was never nominated for FL? It was just created today and was never nominated for FL. Is this a mistake and if so how can it be corrected? Jith12 (talk) 00:16, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

My guess is that the editor grabbed an existing article as a "template", which happened to be a featured list, and didn't know to remove it?--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:27, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

It was cut-and-pasted from Zara Larsson. I don't know why the FL-status, but I'll take it as an error or a mistake by the editor who created the article. --George Ho (talk) 00:29, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Zara Larsson is on my watch list so I saw the copy and paste. That is how I found out about this new article. How do we remove the star though? After a brief read, I don't think it is quite ready for FL yet. As far as I know it isn't just a line of code that you can remove to remove the star. Jith12 (talk) 01:11, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

 Removed. It's just a case of getting rid of {{featured list}}. Primefac (talk) 01:27, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Duplicate simultaneous RFC

• September 9: An RFC was opened at Talk:Plimpton 322.
• October 9: That RFC expired, but has not been closed yet.
• October 18: A second RFC on the same issue was opened on the same page by another user.

I request any uninvolved individual immediately place a procedural close the new duplicate RFC.

It would be beneficial, but not immediately essential, to evaluate consensus on the issue for a full closure. Alsee (talk) 04:17, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

There has been no consensus so far, however the editors opposing inclusion of content are the most active at that page. I wasn't aware of the previously made RFC, and since it is considered expired would ask to keep the new RFC up, and close the expired RFC. prokaryotes (talk) 22:22, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• Ping involved editors: Nine-and-fifty swans, 9and50swans, Sasuke Sarutobi, Barryriedsmith, Garald, Jimmaths, 128.68.56.38, David Eppstein, Wcherowi, Salix alba, Staszek Lem, Alsee, ScrapIronIV, Keira1996, 80.72.90.183, Tigraan, EEng prokaryotes (talk) 22:26, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

  prokaryotes, why would you ping everyone to come here? We do not want to start a debate of the Plimpton issue on this page.

  This is a purely procedural matter. You didn't realize there was an open RFC on the topic, fine, a simple mistake. We don't run duplicate RFCs on the same issue. We close the duplicate, and any responses on the new RFC should simply be considered as additional contributions on the original discussion. Alsee (talk) 23:58, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Because the previous RFC had just two editors involved, and is sort of buried in the vast spaces of the talk page. I see no reason to take this AN post here in regards to RFC not as a wake-up-call to ping editors who have previously engaged in relevant discussions. Ofc, it would be prefered to comment on the current RFC (not the expired), and may be someone wants to chime in here at AN, and add to it. prokaryotes (talk) 00:18, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Email-blacklist and MediaWiki:Email-whitelist

MediaWiki:Email-blacklist (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and MediaWiki:Email-whitelist (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) are apparently new (a few months) blacklist pages for email addresses that are used for problematic mails/signups, but it doesn't seem like their introduction was documented anywhere on enwiki. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:40, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: see mw:Extension:SpamBlacklist it is new "core" functionality; I'm not envisioning it is going to be used much on the English Misplaced Pages - primarily because email addresses are secret here. — xaosflux 22:50, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, I was wondering if some onwiki documentation on how they work - or even just a soft redirect to the MediaWiki documentation - is warranted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:38, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Racist image

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

Can we delete this obviously racist image https://commons.wikimedia.org/File:African_woman_slave_trade.jpg ...almost sick of this black business ? prokaryotes (talk) 01:43, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Deletion requests for files hosted on Commons happen on Commons, but being racist/offensive isn't itself a reason for deletion (unless it holds no educational value). Could always suggest removing from the articles in which it's used? — Rhododendrites \\ 01:55, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

(1) It's a Commons image, not a Misplaced Pages image. (2) One doesn't do the present (or the study of history) any favors by deleting evidence of bad things that have been done in the past, and pretending they never happened. Many bad things were done, and we need to keep them in front of us as object lessons, not sweep them under the rug. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:58, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with the image for historical purposes. An obviously unsavory image to lay your eyes on, absolutely, but it is history and we still need to learn from the mistakes of our past. The most harmful thing we can do with this image, and almost any other image similar to it -- with a few exceptions of course -- is remove it from our memory.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:18, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

The image is agitation against the slave trade, not support of it. Rmhermen (talk) 02:28, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Looking at the pages where the image was placed it clear that the image was an attack on slavery and was actually a reference to accusations that British Captain John Kimber murdered a black slave on his ship, which was one of the incidents that lead to the Slave Trade Act 1807. So in short, the image was not racist in intent, and even if it was, it's relevant to several articles so should not be deleted.--67.68.21.146 (talk) 04:52, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Geisslerlieder

I ask for the article Stefano Sottile to be restored

The article was propsed for deletion without any motivation and without warning me in my talk page, me which I was the author, by User:Geschichte on October 13 and deleted today. Indeed the athlete is enciclopedically because he respects the 4th criterion of notability for athletes: «Has won an individual gold medal at the IAAF World Junior Championships, or Youth World Championships.»WP:NTRACK, because he won 2015 World Youth Championships in Athletics, see ths Template:Footer IAAF World Youth Champions High Jump Men. --Kasper2006 (talk) 04:37, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I've restored it as a contested PROD, but having a bit more than one line of content would be nice. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:27, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks. Ok, I will look at the page and with the new appointments I will do my best. --Kasper2006 (talk) 13:11, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Appeal of TBAN

I have been helping on many articles on Misplaced Pages: University of Paris, Sorbonne University, Sorbonne University group, Paris 1, Paris II, Sciences Po, San Diego State University template, Pierre and Marie Curie University, University of Paris III: Sorbonne Nouvelle, Paris Descartes University. I was subject to a long-term abuse regarding one of those university and I made an ANI request: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive966#Repetitive accusations of antisemitism and homophobia, and threats and personal attacks by XIIIfromTokyo

I see now that there is a special page for WP:LTA, and it explains why admins were not used to such a long list of examples of abuse toward me. It led to a difficulty to see the issue. Because I also showed the last disruptive edits from the user (last three links), he was topic-banned on top of having a warning, but the discussion was closed with a topic-ban (not an IBAN) for me too, and from all French academic institutions, in spite of the fact it was recognized that I clearly improved the articles.

I was mentioned in the close with the other user as topic-banned for a poor english and a difficulty with Misplaced Pages policies. I find difficult to see where I violated such policies or I could not interact with other users correctly. Here are the recent discussions I had on talk pages (except with the long-term abuser and in the recent context of the TBAN or ANI request):

• Talk:Sorbonne_University_(group)
• Talk:Pierre_and_Marie_Curie_University#.C2.A0UPMC_is_the_name_since_2007
• Talk:Sciences_Po#Partners_in_lead

Regarding content of articles, I always respected consensus, for example (among many) with that recent edit where I reverted to the consensus to a phrasing I voted strongly against, in a RfC I initiated. Another example of conciliatory attitude: KPBS: Revision history

In spite of the fact I always answered politely to very strong personal attacks from the other user, due to the difficulty to clear out the situation, I would understand an interaction banned with him (even though I think I would need to report future abuse from him). But a topic ban seems at very least really exaggerated.

After the close, the other user came out with a diff from April that would be ambiguous. I do not think so, because the sentence "On top of being a fake school and being a financial loophole for France, Sciences Po is accused of being" is in the criticism section, so it was clear it was a criticism, but anyway, I corrected the possible ambiguity only 4 days later . It would be very unusual to TBAN, 6 months later, a user for one supposed ambiguity that he corrected himself 4 days later. That diff being brought forward by another user so much time later because of the discussion regarding a WP:LTA he had committed.

Thank you.

--Launebee (talk) 14:09, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

• To my knowledge there is no LTA case page on any of the editors involved; I think the reference to LTA is merely an accusation that XIII's conduct constituted "long term abuse" towards OP. It has been ten days since the TBAN was instituted, and only four days since Launebee's last thread about XIII was closed at ANI (link).This appeal is directed towards the discussion that instituted the TBAN, rather than claiming the TBAN is no longer necessary because Launebee's conduct has sufficiently improved. Because Launebee doesn't raise any new concerns that could not have been raised during the original TBAN discussion, I oppose lifting the ban. The underlying TBAN was put in place to give both XIIIfromTokyo and Launebee the opportunity to edit productively in other topic areas. Launebee, from all appearances, has spent the ten days since the topic ban was instituted trying to continue the dispute with XIII. I don't think we should reward this behavior. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 14:54, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

The LTA is a reference to the thread Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive966#Repetitive accusations of antisemitism and homophobia, and threats and personal attacks by XIIIfromTokyo. I made a new ANI request because there were new attacks, and at least Calton thought it was not improper to raise so soon a new issue. This discussion is not about my dispute with XIII anyway.

Indeed, it is an appeal, so I am not claiming that something changed, but that a TBAN was not justified in the first place. --Launebee (talk) 16:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. Because you could have presented all this information during the initial discussion but failed to do so, I see no reason why we should revisit the topic ban discussion. I see no error in the consensus that imposed your topic ban. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 17:40, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Administrative backlog