Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:53, 1 September 2012

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

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

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

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

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

Template:Active editnotice

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

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

Archives

Index no archives yet (create)

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

• WP:CR
• WP:RFCL
• WP:ANRFC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other areas tracking old discussions

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

Administrative discussions

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

(Initiated 39 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 106 days ago on 7 October 2024) Tough one, died down, will expire tomorrow. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 86 days ago on 28 October 2024) Participation/discussion has mostly stopped & is unlikely to pick back up again. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

 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 76 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 75 days ago on 8 November 2024), RFC expired weeks ago. GoodDay (talk) 21:33, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 27 days ago on 26 December 2024) Requesting closure from uninvolved impartial third party to close a discussion that has not seen a novel argument for a bit. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Deletion discussions

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

(Initiated 33 days ago on 20 December 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 33 days ago on 20 December 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 19 days ago on 3 January 2025) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 15 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 12 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 8 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)

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 249 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 119 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 85 days ago on 29 October 2024) There are voices on both sides (ie it is not uncontroversial) so a non-involved editor is needed to evaluate consensus and close this. Thanks. PamD 09:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 25 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 15 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 11 days ago on 10 January 2025) Seeking uninvolved closure; its degenerated into silly sniping and has clearly run its course. Slatersteven (talk) 16:46, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Talk:Xiaohongshu#Requested move 14 January 2025

(Initiated 8 days ago on 14 January 2025) Seeking uninvolved closure; its been more than 7 days and there appears to be a consensus. There haven't been new opinions for almost three days now. Queen Douglas DC-3 (talk) 22:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

Recreating content

I am recreating {{NYRepresentatives}} and {{ILRepresentatives}}. Can someone restore the history and talk pages to the former and userfy the history and talk pages of the latter.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Any reason why you are recreating these? Is the conclusion of Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 April 6#Template:NYRepresentatives no longer valid? As it stands, this looks like a perfect G4 speedy deletion candidate. Fram (talk) 08:04, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

From an examination of the current {{NYRepresentatives}}, it appears that TtT has taken onboard the scope concerns raised in the TfD and decided to rework the template to make this navigate the congressional districts alone, rather than every single representative. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:04, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Every single representative is still included in the 70K code though. We already have Template:USCongDistStateNY for a template just for the congressional districts alone, making this a duplicate (but badly named) template. Fram (talk) 09:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes this reworks the template into a new format. It is my belief that this solves the problems of page load time and wikilink overload for the template when in use, which were the main issues. I.E., the it solves the reasons for deletion. Secondly, it will serve as a navbox across biography articles making it non redundant with Template:USCongDistStateNY. I will adapt some of that template's content, however. P.S. see these in use below--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:43, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Template:NYRepresentatives

• Proposing to add a 70kb template into over 2000 articles is just as ridiculous now as it was three years ago. Adding a cute little switch to show only one district's past representatives does not alleviate the TfD's concern about size. Therefore, I would opine that you have not adequately addressed the concerns raised in that discussion. You're well aware of my significant hatred for navboxes of this type already, so I'll spare that from this discussion. But man, if you really insist on going down this route, create a template for each district and apply only to relevant articles. Resolute 13:53, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
  • As an aside, is there any reason at all why {{USCongDistStateNY}} needs to have duplicate links for districts 1-29? Redundant links never make navboxes better. Resolute 13:55, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I was under the impression that the newly revised format above loaded a lot faster than the old format below since each page only calls a small portion of the template.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

v t e Members of the U.S. House of Representatives from New York
Districts 1-10 (active) 1st district Floyd, W. • Tredwell • Havens • Smith • Riker • Wickes • Riker • Sage • (Two Seat era Seat A: Lefferts • Crocheron • Scudder • Wood • Seat B: Sage • Townsend • Guyon • Colden) • Wood • Lent • Huntington • Jackson • Floyd • Strong • Lawrence • Lord • King • Floyd, J. • Maurice • Valk • Searing • Carter • Smith • Stebbins • Townsend • Taber • Reeves • Townsend • Scudder • Metcalfe • Covert • Belmont • Covert • McCormick • Belford • Scudder • Storm • Scudder • Cocks • Littleton • Brown • Hicks • Bacon • Hall • Sharp • Macy • Greenwood • Wainwright • Pike • Carney • Hochbrueckner • Forbes • Grucci • Bishop 2nd district Laurance • Watts • Livingston • Mitchill • Sands • Mumford • (Two Seat era Seat A: Mumford • Paulding • Benson • Irving • Meigs • Cambreleng • Seat B: Denning • Mitchill • Post • Wendover • Morgan) • Tyson • Sands • Wood • Crocheron • Bergen • Van Houten • Barton • Vanderveer • De La Montanya • Egbert • Murphy • Seaman • Murphy • Bokee • Bowne • Cumming • Stranahan • Taylor • Humphrey • Odell • Kalbfleisch • Bergen • Barnes • Schumaker • Kinsella • Schumaker • Veeder • O'Reilly • Robinson • Campbell • Boody • Chapin • Clancy • Hurley • Fitzgerald • Lindsay • O'Leary • Caldwell • Kindred • Brunner • Barry • Hall • Derounian • Grover • Downey • Lazio • Israel 3rd district Benson • Van Cortlandt • Mitchill • Clinton • Fisk • Van Cortlandt, Jr. • Denoyelles • Ward • Tompkins • Pierson • (Three and Four Seat era Seat A: Cambreleng • Grinnell • Ferris • Seat B: Morgan • Johnson • White • Lee • Curtis • Wood • Seat C: Sharpe • Verplanck • Selden • Ferris • Moore • Monroe • Roosevelt • Seat D: Lawrence • Morgan • McKeon • Hoffman • McKeon) • Phoenix • Miller • Nicoll • Phoenix • Hart • Walbridge • Pelton • Sickles • Wood • Odell • Humphrey • Hunter • Robinson • Slocum • Woodford • Chittenden • Smith • James • White • Wallace • Coombs • Hendrix • Wilson, F. H. • Driggs • Bristow • Dunwell • Foelker • Maher • Wilson, F. E. • Flynn • MacCrate • Kissel • Lindsay • Pfeifer • Latham • Becker • Derounian • Wolff • Roncallo • Ambro • Carman • Mrazek • King 4th district Hathorn • Schoonmaker • Van Gaasbeck • Hathorn • Elmendorf • Van Cortlandt • Emott • Oakley • Schenck • Tallmadge • Street • Van Wyck • Frost • Ward • Cowles • Ward • Kemble • Ward • Maclay • Underhill • Haws • Walsh • Kelly • Barr • Kerrigan • Wood • Jones • Fox • Roosevelt • Crooke • Bliss • Campbell • Mahoney • Clancy • Coombs • Fischer • Clayton • Hanbury • Wilson • Law • Wilson • Dale • Cullen • Rooney • Barry • McMahon • Clemente • Latham • Halpern • Wylder • Lent • Levy • Frisa • McCarthy 5th district Silvester • Bailey • Brooks • Bailey • Tillotson • Bailey • McCord • Blake • Gardenier • Cooke • Grosvenor • Schuyler • Strong • Patterson • Van Wyck • White • Oakley • Taber • Bockee • Pendleton • Bockee • Titus • Johnson • Davis • Leonard • Woodruff • Tallmadge • Briggs • Tweed • Whitney • Maclay • Wall • Wood • Taylor • Morrissey • Roberts • Meade • Muller • Bliss • Magner • Graham • Bennet • Wilson • Bassett • Waldo • Young • Redfield • Maher • Johnston • Kline • Black • Evans • Heffernan • Roe • Ross • Quinn • Ross • Bosch • Addabbo • Becker • Tenzer • Lowenstein • Lent • Wydler • McGrath • Ackerman 6th district Van Rensselaer • Gordon • Gilbert • Homer • Bird • Van Ness • Bloom • Verplanck • (Two Seat era Seat A: Knickerbocker • Fitch • Seat B: Livingston • Grosvenor) • Fisk • Wilkin, J. • Case • Tuthill • Borland • Craig • Hallock • Craig • Eager • Wilkin, S. • Brown • Jones • Clinton • Fish • Campbell • Jackson • Greeley • Brooks • Wheeler • Cochrane • Conkling • Ward • Raymond • Stewart • Cox • Brooks • Cox • Muller • Cummings • Fitzgerald • Turner • Fellows • Magner • Howe • May • Lindsay • Baker • Calder • Rowe • Lee • Stengle • Sommers • Delaney • Nodar • Delaney • Holtzman • Rosenthal • Halpern • Wolff • LeBoutillier • Addabbo • Waldon • Flake • Meeks 7th district Van Alen • Thompson • Thomas • Hasbrouck, J. • Schuneman • Gardenier • Van Rensselaer • Bleecker • Hasbrouck, A. J. • Betts • Hasbrouck, J. • De Witt • Ruggles • Jenkins • Hasbrouck, A. B. • Belden • DeWitt • Brodhead • Bodle • Sickles • Brodhead • Palen • Van Buren • Anderson • Nelson • Stephens • Walker • Child • Ward • Briggs • Ward • Chanler • Calkin • Ely • Creamer • Ely • Field • Eickhoff • Einstein • Dugro • Dorsheimer • Adams • Bryce • Dunphy • Bartlett • Vehslage • Muller • Lessler • Fitzgerald • Delaney • Maher • Hogan • Quayle • Delaney • Heller • Delaney • Addabbo • Rosenthal • Ackerman • Manton • Crowley 8th district Glen • Van Rensselaer • Livingston • Van Alen • Thompson • Pond • Sherwood • Adams • Root • Kirtland • Clark • McCarty • Strong • King • (Two Seat era Seat A: Adams • Efner • Pratt • Ely • Houck • Seat B: Vanderpoel • McClellan • Vanderpoel • McClellan) • Davis • Woodworth • Warren • Halloway • Dean • Cutting • Wakeman • Clark • Delaplaine • Brooks • Dodge • Brooks • Lawson • Ward • McCook • Adams • Cox • Campbell • McCarthy • Campbell • Dunphy • Walsh • Mitchell • Riordan • Creamer • Sullivan • Riordan • Griffin • Cleary • Bond • Cleary • Carley • Tonry • O'Toole • Pfeifer • Anfuso • Heller • Anfuso • Rosenthal • Scheuer • Nadler 9th district Gordon • Williams • Platt • Walker • Van Rensselaer, K. • Sammons • Lovett • Westerlo • Van Rensselaer, S. • Van Rensselaer, S. III • Hogeboom • McManus • Dickinson • Pierson • Hunt • Vail • Hunt • Clinton • Niven • St. John • McKissock • Murray • Peck • Clarke • Haskin • Haight • Herrick • Darling • Wood • Mellish • Schell • Wood • Hardy • Pulitzer • Cox • Cummings • Campbell • Miner • Bradley • Goldfogle • O'Brien • Swift • O'Connell • Petersen • O'Connell • Rudd • Keogh • Delaney • Ferraro • Manton • Schumer • Weiner 10th district Talbot • Cooper • Cochran • Cooper • Morris • Tibbits • Masters • Nicholson • Stow • Moffitt • Cushman • Dickinson • Rensselaer, S. III • Spencer • Lansing • Gallup • Barnard • Russell • Gordon • Sherrill • Gould • Schoonmaker • Murray, W. • Murray, A. • Van Wyck • Radford • Robertson • Potter • Wood • Hewitt • O'Brien • Hewitt • Spinola • Cockran • Sickles • Cummings • Swann • Sulzer • Metz • Haskell • Volk • Celler • Sommers • Kelly • Celler • Biaggi • Schumer • Towns
Districts 11-20 (active) 11th district Palmer • Sailly • Thompson • Gold • Taylor • Foote • Ashley • Hobbie • King • Root • Cramer • De Graff • Brown • Doe • Linn • Pratt • Silvester • Sutherland • Westbrook • King • Russell • Kenyon • Steele • Winfield • Van Wyck • Greene • Van Wyck • John • Potter, C. • Willis • Morton • Flower • Potter, O. • Merriman • Quinn • Warner • Cummings • Sulzer • Hearst • Fornes • Riordan • Prall • O'Leary • Buck • Heffernan • Celler • Keogh • Brasco • Scheuer • Towns • Owens • Clarke 12th district Thomas • Wilson • Root • Metcalf • (Two Seat era Seat A: Shipherd • Adgate • Palmer • Gross • Walworth • Seat B: Winter • Savage • Pitcher) • Eaton • Dietz • De Graff • Borst • Bouck • Martindale • Russell • Blair • Seymour • Herrick • Ripley • Reynolds • Seymour • Dean • Teller • Miller • Thompson • Beale • Baker • Nelson • Ketcham • St. John • Odell • Potter • Hutchins • Dowdney • Cockran • Flower • Little • Cockran • McClellan • Cockran • Conry • Goldfogle • London • Goldfogle • London • Dickstein • Rooney • Dorn • Carey • Kelly • Chisholm • Owens • Velázquez 13th district Sammons • Swart • Tracy • Boyd • Yates • Lawyer • Peek • Gebhard • Williams • Angel • Chase • Angel • Whallon • Farlin • Palmer • Hand • Tomlinson • Barnard • Wood • Slingerland • Schoolcraft • Sage • Olin • Steele • Hubbell • Cornell • Griswold • Tuthill • Whitehouse • Ketcham • Viele • Fitch • Warner • Shannon • Levy • Belmont • Harrison • Parsons • Levy • Sullivan • Loft • Sullivan • Capozzoli • O'Toole • Multer • Podell • Solarz • Molinari • Fossella • McMahon 14th district Root • Russell • Mathews • Avery • Markell • Cady • Herkimer • Fay • Conkling • Storrs • Beardsley • Gillet • Spencer • Fine • Van Rensselaer • Rogers • Culver • Kellogg • Andrews • Boyd • Peckham • Dickson • Corning • Reynolds • Corning • Pruyn • Goodyear • Pruyn • Mayham • Perry • De Witt • Beebe • Ferdon • Beach • Stahlnecker • Fellows • Quigg • Chanler • Douglas • Rider • Towne • Willett • Kindred • Levy • Farley • La Guardia • Perlman • Sirovich • Edelstein • Klein • Rayfiel • Multer • Rooney • Richmond • Molinari • Molinari • Maloney 15th district Griswold • Williams • Kirkpatrick • Porter • (Two Seat era Seat A: Bowers • Williams • Birdsall • Drake • Lyman • Campbell • Seat B: Thompson • Hammond • Williams • Monell • Hawkes) • Herkimer • Hoffman • McVean • Bovee • Edwards • Wagner • Sanford • Stetson • Russell • Lawrence • Thurman • Russell • Hughes • Dodd • McKean • Griswold • Tanner • Warren • Perry • Bagley • Mayham • Lounsbery • Cornell • Bagley • Beach • Bacon • Stivers • Bacon • Fitch • Straus • Low • Ruppert • Douglas • Olcott • Patten • Conry • Smith • Dooling • Ryan • Boylan • Kennedy • Burchill • Celler • Ray • Carey • Zeferetti • Green • Rangel 16th district Paterson • Tracy • Humphrey • Miller • Gold • Storrs • Kirkland • Cady • Markell • Arnold • Soule • Mann • Loomis • Doig • Ellis • White • Wells • Simmons • Palmer • Kellogg • Hale • Ferriss • Rogers • Smart • Adams • Quinn • Bailey • Nolan • Van Alstyne • Ketcham • Ryan • Fairchild • Ward • Underhill • Pugsley • Ruppert • Harrison • Dooling • Smith • Cockran • O'Connor • Fay • Buck • Murphy • Powell • Murphy • Holtzman • Schumer • Rangel • Serrano 17th district Phelps • Halsey • Harris • Smith • Willoughby • Hubbard • Hackley • Hubbard • Taylor • (Two Seat era Seat A: Beardsley • Miller • Foster • Brewster • Seat B: Turrill • Grant • Floyd) • Benton • Petrie • Alexander • Buell • Perkins • Spinner • Sherman • Hulburd • Wheeler • Hale • Townsend • Wood • Burleigh • Lindsley • Hopkins • Knapp • Cox • Marvin • Odell • Tompkins • Shober • Bennet • George • Carew • Pell • Mills • Cohen • Pratt • Peyser • Barton • Simpson • Baldwin • Coudert • Lindsay • Kupferman • Koch • Murphy • Molinari • Weiss • Nadler • Engel 18th district Kent • Ogden • Ford • Sterling • Martindale • Pitcher • Wardwell • Bronson • Chittenden • King • Collins • King • Rowe • Horton • Cochrane • Vibbard • Marvin • Sanford • Carroll • Wheeler • Williams • Hammond • Johnson • Burleigh • Greenman • Quackenbush • LeFever • Ketcham • Goulden • Ayres • Patten • Francis • Carew • Kennedy • Marcantonio • Donovan • Santangelo • Powell • Rangel • Koch • Green • García • Serrano • Lowey 19th district Geddes • Birdseye • Porter • Hall • Litchfield • Richards • Ross • Keese • Finch • Hogan • Page • Prentiss • Bowne • Hungerford • Mullin • Clarke • Ives • Chase • Hughston • Morse • Graham • Franchot • Miller • Hubbard • Fields • Knapp • Prindle • Hathorn • Wheeler • James • Parker • Swinburne • Kane • Tracey • Haines • Black • Cochrane • Draper • Otis • Andrus • Chandler • Rowan • Chandler • Bloom • Dickstein • Klein • Farbstein • Abzug • Rangel • Biaggi • Engel • Fish • Kelly • Hall 20th district (Two Seat era Seat A: Avery • Throop • Avery • Cruger • Baker • Rochester • Collins • Fosdick • Bunner • Hawkins • Dayan • Seat B: Comstock • Richmond • Woodcock • Eyck • Hugunin • Wright • Fisher • Sanford • Wardwell) • Johnson • Seymour • Parker • Allen • Gordon • Beardsley • Carpenter • Jenkins • Matteson • Jenkins • Matteson • Conkling • Clark • Laflin • Merriam • Wilber • Hathorn • Starin • West • Wemple • West • Sanford • Tracey • Southwick • Glynn • Southwick • Bradley • Harrison • Cantor • Siegel • La Guardia • Lanzetta • Marcantonio • Lanzetta • Marcantonio • Bloom • Roosevelt, F. Jr. • Davidson • Teller • Ryan • Abzug • Weiss • Ottinger • DioGuardi • Lowey • Gilman • Sweeney • Gillibrand
Districts 21-29 (active) 21st district (Two Seat era Seat A: Hopkins • Brooks • Ellicott • Allen • Spencer • Seat B: Howell • Porter • Clarke • Spencer • Tracy) • Clark • Whitmore • Clark • Monell • Collier • Mitchell • Mason • Clark • Cary • Goodyear • Starkweather • Walden • Snow • Bennett • Duell • Kernan • Conkling • Bailey • Roberts • Merriam • Miller • Bundy • Wilber • Jacobs • Ray • Johnson • Moffitt • Wever • Schermerhorn • Wilber • Stewart • Ketcham • McMillan • Fish, H. II • Connell • George • Hulbert • Donovan • Ansorge • Weller • Gavagan • Torrens • Javits • Zelenko • Healey • Scheuer • Badillo • García • Fish, H. IV • McNulty • Tonko 22nd district Dwinell • Miller • Stower • Beekman • Reed • (Two Seat era Seat A: Halsey • Leonard • Bruyn • Beers • Leonard • Partridge • Seat B: Hathaway • Reynolds • Gray • Dana • Riggs) • Purdy • Strong • Birdsall • Bennett • Smith • Goodwin • McCarty • Goodwin • Lee • Lansing • Littlejohn • Holmes • Churchill • Lansing • Roberts • Bagley • Miller • Skinner • Parker • Lansing • Russell • Curtis • Littauer • Draper • Bruckner • Griffin • Curley • Lynch • Powell • Fine • Healey • Gilbert • Badillo • Bingham • Gilman • Solomon • Sweeney • Hinchey 23rd district Litchfield • Badger • Earll • Jewett • (Two Seat era Seat A: Fuller • Bicknell • Earll • Birdseye • Seat B: Taylor • Rogers • Foster) • Robinson • Hough • Duer • Babcock • Lyon • Gilbert • Hoard • Clark • Davis • McCarthy • Duell • Lansing • Lord • Bacon • Prescott • Spriggs • Sherman • Bentley • Wever • Foote • Emerson • Southwick • De Forest • Goulden • Bennet • Oliver • McKiniry • Rossdale • Oliver • Buckley • Lynch • Fine • Dollinger • Gilbert • Buckley • Bingham • Peyser • Caputo • Peyser • Stratton • McNulty • Boehlert • McHugh 24th district Day • Kellogg • Garrow • Powers • Doubleday • Day • Doubleday • Noble • Morgan • Wheaton • Gott • Jones • Granger • Sedgwick • Pomeroy • Cowles • Seeley • Duell • Baker • Mason • Nutting • Pindar • Wilber • Pindar • Van Horn • Chickering • Shaw • Knapp • Smith • LeFevre • Fairchild, G. • Oglesby • Fairchild, B. • Ganly • Fairchild, B. • Ganly • Fairchild, B. • Fitzpatrick • Rabin • Isacson • Dollinger • Buckley • Fino • Biaggi • Reid • Ottinger • Solomon • McHugh • Boehlert • Arcuri 25th district Lawrence • Humphrey • Woodcock • Maxwell • Barstow • Clark • Chapin • Birdsall • Strong • Maynard • Rathbun • Conger • Howe • Morgan • Butterfield • Pomeroy • Morris • Kelsey • Lamport • MacDougall • Leavenworth • Hiscock • Belden • Sherman • Littauer • Durey • Akin • Taylor • Husted • Wainwright • Millard • Gamble • Buckley • Fino • Barry • Ottinger • Peyser • Fish IV • Boehlert • Walsh • Maffei 26th district (Two Seat era Seat A: Marvin • Halsey • Babcock • Seat B: Rose • Maynard • Rose • Dickson) • Dickson • Granger • Sibley • Granger • Greig • Granger • Dana • Ellsworth • Lawrence • Jackson • Walbridge • Oliver • Pottle • Chamberlain • Hotchkiss • Goodrich • Lamport • MacDougall • Camp • Payne • Millard • De Lano • Ray • Dwight • Flack • Malby • Merritt • Platt • Fish III • Quinn • Potts • McGrath • Gamble • Dooley • Reid • Gilman • Martin • Hinchey • Reynolds • Lee 27th district Hayden • Barnard • Childs • Whittlesey • Howell • Lee • Andrews • Mallory • Oliver • Green • De Mott • Holley • Blackmar • Sackett • Taylor • Parker • Wells • Diven • Van Valkenburg • Ward • Smith • Platt • Lapham • Wadsworth • Payne • Nutting • Payne • Belden • Poole • Belden • Driscoll • Sherman • Millington • Talcott • McClellan • Ward • Pratt • Goodwin • Rockefeller • Le Fevre • Gwinn • Barry • St. George • Dow • Robison • McHugh • Wortley • Walsh • Paxon • Reynolds • Quinn • Higgins 28th district Rochester • Woods • Porter • Magee • Wheeler • Whittlesey • Childs • Kempshall • Childs • Patterson • Holmes, E. • Schermerhorn • Hastings • Kelsey • Irvine • Van Valkenburg • Clarke • Hart • Selye • Davis • Holmes, C. • Clarke • Smith • Platt • Dwight • Millard • Arnot • Flood • Rockwell • Payne • Knapp • Mott • Ten Eyck • Sanford • Ten Eyck • Corning • Byrne • Gamble • St. George • Wharton • Resnick • Fish IV • Stratton • McHugh • Slaughter 29th district Wilson • Adams • Evans • Tracy • Lay • Patterson • Putnam • Gates • Carroll • Rose • Horsford • Boody • Carpenter • Williams • Andrews • Ely • Frank • Van Horn • Fisher • Wakeman • Clarke • Walker • Hungerford • Richardson • Arnot • Davenport • Raines • Gillet • Driscoll • Parker • Thomas • Cluett • Taylor • Bennet • St. George • Wharton • O'Brien • Button • Stratton • King • Pattison • Solomon • Horton • LaFalce • Houghton • Kuhl • Massa
Districts 30-45 and At-large (Obsolete) 30th district Tracy • Garnsey • Norton • Cooke • Fuller • Young • Peck • Young • Hubbell • Robie • Rumsey • Robie • Pringle • Sherman • Frank • Ganson • Humphrey • Bennett • Williams • Hoskins • Davy • Hart • Van Voorhis • Greenleaf • Baker • Greenleaf • Wadsworth • Dwight • Wallin • Charles • Lunn • Crowther • Kearney • Le Fevre • Wharton • O'Brien • King • McEwen • Martin • Conable • Eckert • Slaughter • Quinn 31st district Hazeltine • Marvin, R. • Clarke • Tyler • Lewis • Marvin, D. • Risley • Martin • Flagler • Burroughs • Reynolds • Van Horn • Fenton • Aernam • Sheldon • Sessions • Bass • Hoskins • Benedict • Crowley • Stevens • Sawyer • Wadsworth • Van Voorhis • Brewster • O'Grady • Perkins • Payne • Merritt • Snell • Pierce • Kilburn • Kearney • Taylor • King • Kilburn • McEwen • Mitchell • Kemp • Paxon • Houghton 32nd district Fillmore • Love • Fillmore • Moseley • Hall • Spaulding • Haven • Hatch • Spaulding • Sessions • Bass • Lockwood • Pierce • Scoville • Rogers • Farquhar • Lockwood • Mahany • Ryan • Perkins • Havens • Danforth • Mott • Sweet • Culkin • Fuller • Byrne • O'Brien • Kearney • Stratton • Pirnie • Hanley • Wortley • LaFalce 33rd district Hard • Mitchell • Babcock • Smith • Putnam • Hascall • Fenton • Edwards • Fenton • Norton • Patterson • Van Aernam • Brewer • Weber • Wiley • Bunting • Daniels • Alexander • Gillet • Fassett • Underhill • Talcott • Snyder • Davenport • Sisson • Douglas • Taylor • Kilburn • Robison • Walsh • Lee • Nowak 34th district Hunt • Burrows • Sessions • Laidlaw • Hooker • Vreeland • Wadsworth • Porter • Simmons • Fairchild • Hill • Clarke, J. • Tolley • Clarke, J. • Clarke, M. • Lord • Hall • Kilburn • Williams • Pirnie • Riehlman • Hanley • Terry • Horton • Lundine • Houghton 35th district Ryan • Driscoll • Clancy • Magee • Hancock • Fuller • Davies • Williams • Riehlman • Stratton • Hanley • Conable 36th district Alexander • Smith • Payne • Gould • Taber • Hancock • Riehlman • Taber • Horton • Smith III • LaFalce 37th district Vreeland • Underhill • Pratt • Houghton • Henry • Stalker • Cole • Hall • Cole • Robison • Ostertag • Conable • Dulski • Nowak 38th district Dunn • Jacobstein • Whitley • Duffy • Kelly • O'Brien • Taber • Keating • Weis • Goodell • Hastings • Kemp 39th district Danforth • Sanders • Wadsworth • Cole • Ostertag • Pillion • McCarthy • Kemp • Hastings • Lundine 40th district Gittins • Dempsey • Andrews • Rogers • Keating • Miller • Smith III 41st district Smith • MacGregor • Cooke • Beiter • Harter • Beiter • Mruk • Wadsworth • Ostertag • Radwan • Dulski 42nd district Driscoll • Waldow • Mead • Schwert • Butler • Andrews • Pfeiffer • Miller • Pillion 43rd district Hamilton • Reed • Elsaesser • Tauriello • Radwan • Reed • Goodell 44th district Butler • Gorski • Butler 45th district Reed At-large Tremain • Slocum • (Two Seat era Seat A: Fitzgibbons • Merritt • Seat B: Studley • O'Day • Stanley)

• • • • if you save the various variations of the template on separate sandbox pages, you can view the performance timings/sizes by viewing the HTML source. if there is a problem with the single switch, the solution could be to split it into subtemplates and have the main template selectively transclude the subtemplates. Frietjes (talk) 14:53, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
        • The load time was never a problem for me. Do you know if the switches should save load time?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear. I appear to have invented automatic succession boxes. Uncle G (talk) 23:35, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

TonyTheTiger, is there any reason not to create separate templates for separate districts? You are never going to show more than one district at a time, so what's the use of having them all in one template? Fram (talk) 08:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

1. It enables consistent naming across states for Congressional templates.
2. You will need to accommodate multiple districts on a single page (which may mean the template needs a tweak). Having two or three districts show in a single template would be superior to multiple identical templates for each district, IMO.
3. Rather than editing 46 templates to make minor formatting changes, a single template can be edited. Thus, as template MOS evolves and/or stylistic preferences change we can uniformly change all the districts at once.
4. It may even load faster and will add fewer links as a single template if multiple districts are included. The major objections were load time and wikilink overload in the AFD IIRC.

• That is all I have off the top of my head.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:24, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
• The naming seems to be a non-problem, you can just create "NYRepresentatives25" instead of using "NYRepresentatives|25". The multiple districts is rather a rare occurrence, I think, but you may correct me there. As for the need to edit many templates instead of one, the main look of the templates can be stored in one template, and the different lists in other templates calling on the layout template when needed. No need to call on a 70K template when you only need a 4K one. Fram (talk) 06:54, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Multiple districts is going to be an extremely common occurrence. Probably, well over 100 instances.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:12, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Not sure I understand the point about calling a 70k template. Does it means it takes the page as long to load as if all 70K be were being opened on the page?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:12, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't know how to set up one template for the other 46 to call (which is not relevant to whether it is preferable, but is a fact).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:12, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
    • You already use one template to call, you use the template:navbox, which basically handles the layout issues. Anyway, I've made a quick mockup of one of the "divided" templates (size:2K), which calls on a header template (size:2K), to show you how it can be done (probably easier or better ways are possible, some of our template gurus may be of help). Multiple districts would require multiple templates in this solution though. Fram (talk) 08:58, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Template:NYRepresentatives25

• To give you an idea of how common multiple templates will be, look at the following list from this template: David Woodcock, John Maynard (New York), Theodore M. Pomeroy, Clinton D. MacDougall, James S. Sherman (3 districts), Lucius Littauer, Ralph A. Gamble (3 districts), Charles A. Buckley (3 districts), Paul A. Fino, Robert R. Barry, Richard Ottinger (3 districts), Peter A. Peyser (3 districts), Hamilton Fish IV (4 districts) and Sherwood Boehlert (3 districts). In my mind, this means that we want to have a single template that can call multiple districts rather than add two, three or four (maybe 5 or 6) district templates with repetitive header wikilinks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:46, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Theodore M. Pomeroy is an example with two boxes. Considering that they are by default collapsed, I don't believe the repetitive aspect is too problematic. Fram (talk) 14:07, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
    • For a discussion that's supposedly driven by the concerns of large templates, you don't seem to be blinking an eyelid at the idea of transcluding the 18KiB (not counting nested transclusions) {{navbox}} twice. ☺ (Working out how expensive templates are is a bit more complex than just looking at their raw sizes, anyway.) Uncle G (talk) 15:07, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
  • It is interesting that David Woodcock is first on your list. Uncle G (talk) 15:07, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
• Can I ask the obvious question: Why is this discussion here? There looks to be a decent discussion going on between two editors over the structure, use, and organization of some templates. There doesn't appear to be any need, or interest, in involving admins in this at all. Can we move this discussion to a better venue? --Jayron32 13:57, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Admin action was requested at the start, but if any will be needed (and which,restoration or deletion) remains to be seen after this discussion. Fram (talk) 14:07, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I still need the ILRepresentatives content userfied.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:32, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
      • It was userfied three years ago. It doesn't look like any additional editing was done to it which has since been deleted or needs restoring. See User:Erik9/ILRepresentatives. You could work on it there, or ask Erik9 if you can move it to your userspace. Anything else? Content discussions shouldn't really happen at AN. I am heartened to see it going on in a productive manner, but here isn't the correct venue. --Jayron32 19:06, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Damage at CBS Records

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This is already being discussed on multiple other pages, including WP:DRN. there is no need to have a duplicate discussion here, this is a content dispute and therefore outside the scope of what this noticeboard is for. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:22, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Moved from WP:ANI. Black Kite (talk) 14:17, 29 August 2012 (UTC) There was consensus to have an article called "CBS Records" as the landing page for the 1,300 incoming links form other Misplaced Pages articles. The previous landing page was an entity called CBS Records (2006) which was not correct. The discussion was here at Talk:CBS Records (2006) and consensus was to preserve the 1,300 links and give them a landing page. User:Steelbeard1 refused to accept the consensus arguing that a quorum of responders was required and he is now altering the 1,300incoming links to an inprecise synonym for CBS Records such as Sony Music Entertainment or Columbia Records. Since then he has made a series of changes that have damaged the article and requires an administrator to remedy. By cutting and pasting information to a new article called CBS Records International he has lost my edit history. In making some of the renames, talk pages are now not attached to article pages. It would also be great if an admin person would help enforce the consensus to have an article called "CBS Records" as the landing page for the 1,300 incoming links which Steel has now made a disambiguation page to two entities, one of which is not the target for the 1,300 incoming links. This was brought to Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard which has gone of on a tangent and has not addressed the consensus enforcement or the damage to the article histories and article talk pages. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:06, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• I've moved this to WP:AN where it should be. Requests for administrators to perform a technical function (i.e. a history merge or restore), or determine consensus etc. should always be at AN, as they are not matters that require immediate intervention. Black Kite (talk) 14:17, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

This is currently being hashed out in Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Actually, the damaged WAS CAUSED by Norton when he altered the CBS Records article (which talks about the current incarnation of CBS Records which is now located thanks to his messing around and my trying to settle things to CBS Records (2006)) by inserting too much info about the former CBS Records entities which now go by the names Sony Music Entertainment and Columbia Records. The CBS Records article is now a disambig page intended to aid editors to fix articles whose wikilinks go to the wrong CBS Records entity. The CBS Records page was frozen for about three days which I believe is not sufficient time to develop a consensus which can take weeks. When the freeze expired, he went ahead and reinserted the objectionable material which was immediately reverted by myself. The votes regarding the revisions TOTALED THREE VOTES which you must admit does not count as consensus as well as the fact that other editors and admins were asked to add their input and Norton COULD NOT WAIT for their input to make his unwelcome revisions. I have tried to settle the matter by renaming the CBS Records article to CBS Records (2006), create a new article on Columbia Records' operations outside North America which I admit has its own history called CBS Records International as well as making CBS Records a disambig page. But that did not settled matters with Norton as I hoped. Steelbeard1 (talk) 14:22, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

If the only issue is the copying and pasting of information from an article to create CBS Records International then that is easily fixed. Where did you copy the information from? Black Kite (talk) 14:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

1. There have been multiple entities known as "CBS records".
2. Until recently, the page located at CBS Records was an article on the current entity going by that name, which is a label founded in 2006.
3. There are over a thousand inbound links to this page, most of which actually want to point at a different article.

Steelbeard1's solution has been as follows:

1. Moving the article at the root title to a disambiguated name.
2. Recreating the root article as a dab page.
3. Attempting to fix inbound links individually.

So far as I can see, this is absolutely the correct approach. So what, exactly, is the problem here? Does RAN seriously want us to have some chimera article at CBS Records which deliberately conflates several different entities? Or is this simply a request to have a particular article's history moved? If it's the latter, then it may not be possible to do this properly, because if we have erroneously conflated multiple entities into the same page then the history will be too intermingled to cleanly split between disambiguated pages. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:44, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

In response to myself, I've now read that train wreck of a DRN thread, and the answer is that yes, RAN does in fact want to conflate multiple separate organisations into one article because he disagrees with the premise of disambiguation pages ("Misplaced Pages requires a proper landing page for the 1,300 links, the term should not be going to a disambiguation page"). This is simply wrong, and I have no idea why So God created Manchester (talk · contribs) continued to humour RAN for so long at DRN when Electriccatfish2 (talk · contribs) and Czarkoff (talk · contribs) correctly stated the answer almost immediately after it was opened. At this point, there doesn't appear to be any need for further administrative action: the trout that RAN deserves for wasting people's time over an incorrect interpretation of the purpose of dab pages can be issued by a non-admin. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. The attribution for CBS Records International does need to be fixed, though, so we need to know where it was copy/pasted from. Black Kite (talk) 14:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I think RAN's argument was that CBS Records (1938-1991) is the primary topic for CBS Records, and not that he opposed disambiguation entirely. I personally have no objections to disambiguating the page.--SGCM (talk) 15:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct, User:Thumperward is incorrect. None of the incoming links are for CBS Records (2006). All 1,300 links are for "CBS Records (?-1991)" as per the references below. While we can redirect the links to Sony Music Entertainment, traditionally we maintain articles on significant companies even when they are sold or merged. User:Thumperward please AGF and don't disregard people's good faith arguments as a "train wreck". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:18, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I want an article to entity known as "CBS Records" as it existed from up to 1991, that became part of Sony. We have articles on all the entities that became General Motors. None of the links leading to the disambiguation page are for CBS Records (2006). CBS Records (2006) and CBS Records International are now the disambiguation page as well as Sony Music Entertainment. CBS Records International ≠ "CBS Records", they each had their own presidents. Here are references about the "CBS Records" that was later sold to the conglomerate Sony Music Entertainment: --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• Yetnikoff Stepping Down As Chief of CBS Records. No single replacement for Mr. Yetnikoff was named. CBS Records said Tommy Mottola, president of domestic operations; Robert Summer, president of CBS Records International, and Neil Keating, president of the Columbia Record Club, would run day-to-day operations, reporting directly to Mr. Ohga. It said the board would consider long-term succession plans." This shows that "CBS Records" ≠ CBS Records International if they each have their own concurrent presidents.
• CBS Records Inc., in the first significant management shift directed by its new corporate parent, the Sony Corporation, plans to move its classical music ...
• CBS Records Ex-Chief Barred at Headquarters‎. Walter R. Yetnikoff, the colorful former chief executive of CBS Records who suddenly stepped aside earlier this month, has been ordered not to trespass on CBS ...
• CBS Records' Dispute Seen. A dispute is emerging over the price that the Sony Corporation will pay for CBS Records, someone close to the negotiations said yesterday. Sony agreed to pay ...
• He's CBS Records' chief star-maker‎. As president of CBS Records, he has helped turn some of rock's hottest newcomers into hitmakers. President of the world's largest ...

The problem here is that you haven't been very successful at articulating your argument. Keep it short. If this is a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC problem, then just state that it is. I'm guessing that it is, based on reading the mess of a discussion that was Talk:CBS Records (2006) and the DRN, and only kept responding because a dispute over the primary topic is a valid concern. Copy-pasting your arguments from the DRN is not helpful.--SGCM (talk) 15:15, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Then create one afresh, using the content currently located in Sony Music Entertainment#1938-1991: Columbia/CBS Records, and then argue tio have it moved to the root title. I have no idea why you thought the correct approach here was to hijack an existing article. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:16, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

What existing article did I hijack? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed with Cunningham. This would have probably been the best approach. Create a separate article for CBS Records (1938-1991) and request a move to determine if it's the primary topic.--SGCM (talk) 15:21, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Norton is skating on thin ice yet again. The trout he got is not convincing him how futile his pitch is. Once again, all material about the entity called CBS Records prior to 1991 properly goes to the Sony Music article unless it applies to CBS Records' operations outside North America which can go to the CBS Records International article. The material Norton is referring to above has to do with the CBS Records entities that existed prior to 1991 which now go by different names which are Columbia Records and Sony Music. Steelbeard1 (talk) 15:23, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

My solution is to move "CBS Records" to "CBS Records (disambiguation)" and have the history of CBS Records migrated from Sony Music Entertainment#1938-1991: Columbia/CBS Records to "CBS Records". That will bring the 1,300 links to the proper entity and we can have a link in the article to the conglomerate Sony Music Entertainment#1938-1991: Columbia/CBS Records. This will be one change, rather than changing 1,300 links to Sony Music Entertainment#1938-1991: Columbia/CBS Records. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

It would have been a lot more helpful if you stated that at the beginning of the DRN. ;) --SGCM (talk) 15:34, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Norton did handle this dispute badly, and the trouting he got for it is deserved. What he should have done is exactly as Cunningham suggested. But whether or not CBS Records (1938-1991) deserves a separate article, and whether or not it is the primary topic, is a valid topic for discussion. Hopefully, Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Summary of the dispute thus far restarts the discussion, so that we can have an actual meaningful discussion over CBS Records (1938-1991) .--SGCM (talk) 15:34, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

None of this would have been needed if Steel respected the original consensus on the talk page and he worked within the system.

Once again, there was NO CONSENSUS as there were THREE VOTES TOTAL in THREE DAYS and to get consensus can take weeks. Other editors and admins were invited to add their input but did not get the chance to within those three days. Norton's move regarding the CBS Records disambig page was overruled by an admin who restored CBS Records as the proper disambig page. As for "CBS Records (1938-1991), that is already in the Sony Music article in the section called (1938-1990) Columbia/CBS Records where it belongs. Besides, the "CBS Records" entity did not officially begin until 1961 when the international organization called CBS Records International was being organized. Steelbeard1 (talk) 15:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

You defied consensus and made it into a disambiguation page in this edit. There is no quorum requirement for consensus, just time limits to debate. We were given three days of lock down to come up with a solution. Consensus was made. If consensus changes in the weeks and months ahead then further changes can be made, but you did not respect the consensus and made unilateral changes. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Consensus is not immutable, and there's no "official" barrier as to when consensus is established.--SGCM (talk) 15:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Once again, THREE VOTES TOTAL in THREE DAYS does not constitute a consensus. Norton gets trouted again. Steelbeard1 (talk) 15:58, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Let's stop going off track here Norton. Misplaced Pages is not a vote. Consensus can change and is not immutable. You should be focusing on the dispute over the primary topic. Does CBS Records (1938-1991) deserve a separate article? Is it the primary topic? This is what you should be concentrating on. Provide evidence to support your arguments. The discussion has been constantly muddled from derailment.--SGCM (talk) 15:49, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

"CBS Records (1938-1991)" which should actually be (1938-1990) does not deserve a separate article because the CBS Records name was not used until 1961 when CBS Records International was being organized. The entity was called either Columbia Recording Corporation or Columbia Records until 1966 when the CBS Records organizational setup was established. That material belongs where is already is in the Sony Music article. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:01, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I apologize, my mistake on the 1991 part. Anyhow, this is what both editors should be focusing on. Would a CBS Records article for 1938-1990 meet Misplaced Pages's notability criteria and guidelines on splitting? Now, let's stop dragging out debates over past consensus, and focus on finding a compromise. :) --SGCM (talk) 16:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and it would have 1300 links to it. Rothorpe (talk) 16:17, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Now, let's leave that for the DRN case. :) I'm going to restart the DRN, because the previous DRN went way off topic over a dispute over conduct.--SGCM (talk) 16:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• Richard, this s what, the third time you have posted anout this here or at ANI? Is there some part of the concept that AN and ANI are explicitly not part of our dispute resolution system that is escaping you? And of course the contention that the protection period I chose established spme sort of deadline for forming a consensus is unmitigated hogwash. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Norton has inserted a poll in the Talk:CBS Records page asking if that page should be the DAB page which an admin had made or should it be in the "CBS Records (disambiguation)" page which Norton wants it to be in. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:35, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

That's perfectly acceptable. There can certainly still be dispute as to whether there is a primary topic. The problem, so far as I can see it, is RAN hijacking an existing article to turn it into something different. if that's ended, then this is not longer of any adminstrative concern. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 07:46, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I have given this notice in Misplaced Pages:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#CBS_Records_2: If there is any attempt to make the CBS Records article anything other than a DAB page, it will be reverted in a New York minute. So can admins monitor the CBS Records page? Thank you. Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:56, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Questioning Mohammed Condé - is this an attack page?

Hi. The page Mohammed Condé was tagged as an attack page, as it apparently attacked the subject. However, it was sourced, and so I declined it. The tagging editor has just queried this on my wall, stating that these sources are single source and may not be ruputable. I am just about to disappear for the evening, and won't be able to do anything about this till tomorrow at the earliest.

Could someone please review the article and make the approprate decision? it is going to need more time than I am able to offer tonight - I'm already late!

Thanks, Stephen! 16:34, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I've trimmed out the various weakly sourced, unsourced, and "it was rumored that" material, leaving the article a good deal shorter. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:41, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Stephen! 06:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi guys, I am the creator of the page in question. I did not intend for it to be an attack page and apologise if it has been perceived in this way. Thank you for your feedback and removing the content you thought inappropriate. I will now attempt to objectively (and well referenced) rewrite some of the content that does merit being on the page. I look forward to discussing it with you on the Talk page. OscarK878 (talk) 13:25, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Deletion help

File:This is the cover art for the soundtrack Irvine Welsh's Beautiful World Ecstasy Remixes by the artist Various. The cover art copyright is believed to belong to the label, Toolroom Records, or the graphic artist(s), Mark Blamire.jpg can safely be deleted as R3. However, the tag won't show up when I try to tag it. Anyone wanna just put it out of its misery? Ten Pound Hammer • 23:31, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

It's been deleted by CharlieEchoTango. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:49, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Approach to blocking

For information, there's currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:School and university projects#School blocked for meatpuppetry, now about the approaches administrators take to blocking IP addresses and its impact, that may be of interest. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:20, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Possible spammer

A user, specifically User:RAIDENRULES123 left me a very strange message telling me about games and said user also has a link to a youtube channel, I would like an admin to take a look at her user page and see if she is a possible spammer, thanks --Camilo Sánchez Talk to me 02:00, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I think this user has been bitten by ClueBot NG's message, at first sight.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:12, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Per this would an invitation to Tea be in order?--Robert Keiden (talk) 02:39, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Probably not. First, the user needs to unstick her caps-lock key. Then there's the issue of this: it looks like this user is here solely to promote her own book. Furthermore, the userpage doesn't look like one of a productive contributor. MER-C 03:43, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Consider the possibility that this editor is very young, i.e., 12 or so. That's the tone it has to me. Looie496 (talk) 06:14, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Rather than give her the usual alphabet soup, I dropped a summary of the alphabet soup that seems to be relevant. Hopefully, the light bulb of cluefulness flashes. Blackmane (talk) 11:23, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Need some talk page edits looked at for possible deletion, per WP:BLP

I'm not even going to bother with the editor, but User:Rogue 9 made two potentially harmful BLP comments here, and here. Calling a living person a "Nutcase" in one comment and an "ideologue" in another. The person referenced is Thomas DiLorenzo, who is still alive and whose article and talk page should adhere to WP:BLP.--JOJ 02:32, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I stand by the content of my statements, but if they must be deleted for policy reasons, I have no objection. Rogue 9 (talk) 03:00, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Since you're not allowed personal opinion in encyclopedia articles, or original research, and the WP:BLP policy can lead to blocks for doing so, does that mean that you also accept being blocked for policy reasons too? dangerouspanda 11:07, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Gumbo

Hello, there is an IP contributor from range 80.102.xxx.xxx that has been spamming this article for several months now with information from Hurricane Katrina that is unrelated to the article. He keeps insulting the editors who revert his additions in his summaries, and has forced the article to be locked down twice. There are two insults in the history right now, could someone please remove these comments from the article history?

1. Diff 1
2. Diff 2

Thanks,
--Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 04:13, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't see those as meeting the requirements for removal. They're not "grossly degrading", etc dangerouspanda 11:13, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Please take a second look, this editor has a pattern of insults and abusive editing.

1. Diff 3
2. Diff 4
3. Diff 5

Calling other editors halfwits, idiots, buffoons and other insults should not be allowed and is not appropriate. I personally do not like these types of insults being left in a permanent, public records. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 16:27, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the edit summaries are rude and obnoxious, but as the previous admin noted, they do not fall within any of the criteria for revision deletion. I've left the IP editor a warning about their behavior, but I won't be able to monitor the situation this weekend, so please report them to WP:AIV or WP:ANEW if they resume. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:50, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Muangthong United F.C.

should semi protect about vandalism about stadium's capacity, there a lot of muangthong fan club to plus number of stadium's capacity

should see about stadium with opinion about SCG stadium--โจ : แฟนท่าเรือ : เกรียนที่หน้าตาไม่ดีแห่งไร้สาระนุกรม : พูดคุยกับควายตัวนี้ได้ที่นี่ 12:31, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Moving to commons without tagging

Wasn't sure where to put this, so am putting it here. I uploaded a number of free images but do not want them moving to Commons (long story). Thus, like this example File:Chavez - Alexandra Palace 260512.jpg I have been reverting the {{move to Commons}} template. Despite this, the image has been moved to Commons regardless with an edit summary that suggests it had a move tag on it, which it didn't. Given Commons I suppose I will be wasting my time trying to get it removed, so my question is - what can I do to stop this happening in future? Black Kite (talk) 13:38, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

• If the image is freely licensed, you can't prevent it from being moved to Commons. There is a template Template:Keep local for keeping a copy here too, however. WilyD 13:47, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

• Actually, that's not the case. According to WP:MTC, images should not be moved when the uploader clearly does not want that to happen. I would have thought that removing the nowcommons template was making that clear, but obviously I'll have to add DO NOT MOVE TO COMMONS in capital letters in the future :( Black Kite (talk) 13:54, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

  There is no way for an uploader to prevent a file being moved to Commons (assuming it is freely licensed of course).--Ymblanter (talk) 14:33, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

• Perhaps that should be pointed out to editors on the upload form, then. Because at the moment it isn't, which is clearly an issue for those of us that want nothing to do with the place. Black Kite (talk) 15:13, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
  • It is pointed - "Step 3: Provide source and copyright information" - " I can demonstrate that it is legally okay for anybody to use, in Misplaced Pages and elsewhere, for any purpose. " Bulwersator (talk) 15:28, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

• Either this page (where?) or you mistakes two things: copying image to Commons (cannot be stopped for images free in USA and country of origin) and deleting file from English Misplaced Pages that is duplicated by file on Commons (may be stopped by tagging file on enwiki with Template:Keep local) Bulwersator (talk) 15:27, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Hm, it contains suggestion "Do not transfer files when the uploader specifically requests that their files are not moved to Commons" Bulwersator (talk) 15:31, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I added explanation "**Note that you may still copy file to Commons, without requesting deletion of local copy" Bulwersator (talk) 15:44, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

• Ok there are several things going on here, first Do not transfer is only really supposed to be used when there is a policy reason why the image should not be moved to commons. If the image tagging indicates the image is acceptably licensed for commons, then the do not transfer tag is inappropriate. As for {{Keep local}} it is a request to not move the image. As a matter of respect to the uploader, the request should be respected, but as far as I know there has never been a discussing about making the request binding. From a legal standpoint, if the image is creative commons licensed, there is no impediment to moving it regardless of the authors wishes. Jerk thing to do, but I think we would need a policy changing RFC to make it actionable. Monty₈₄₅ 22:21, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

• I'm unaware of any situation in which we have permitted people to prohibit transfers to Commons of images that are otherwise acceptable there. In copyright-safe situations, the only restriction that I've ever seen permitted is the {{Keep local}} exception to F8 speedy deletion. Users who upload PD or freely-licensed images have no legal right to restrict transfer to Commons, and if we decided to give them a policy-based reason to object, we'd be creating something new. What's more, we can't do that without action by WMF: Commons is a completely separate project under WMF, and actions such as uploading images to Commons are governed by Commons policies, not en:wp policies. Nyttend (talk) 22:32, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

• Fine, I suppose. In that case I simply won't be uploading any more free images. Oh well; I think Redvers said it best. Black Kite (talk) 23:04, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
• For me this interpretation of keep local is quite strange - "The uploader or another editor requests that the local copy of this file be kept." - there is nothing about potential transfer to Commons Bulwersator (talk) 23:37, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

It's OK?

It's OK----->User:Pandukht and User talk:Pandukht? --Pallerti (talk) 18:58, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Is what ok? --Jayron32 19:03, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Probably the political statement at the top of both about "Hungarian Justice". What's not ok is the failure to advise them of this ANI filing :-) dangerouspanda 19:05, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Request for page move

Please can someone help us to move Woolwich Free Ferry to 'Woolwich Ferry'. The problem is that Woolwich Ferry already exists, originally as a redirect to WFF. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:18, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

You're all set. FYI, for the future, 2 factoids:

1. You would have been able to move it yourself, if you hadn't made the edit to blank the redirect. Anyone can move a page to another page if the target page is a redirect to the source page, and there's only one edit in the history of the target page.
2. You can also tag pages like this with {{db-g6}}.

Let me know if you need anything else. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:35, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Merge and delete

Does anyone do this any more? I have a page in mind. Don't know how community feels about it. Dlohcierekim 20:21, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Why should one merge and delete. If content needs to be preserved, then attribution needs to occur, and for that reason a page history needs to be maintained so we know who contributed what text. If you merge content, then delete the history of the merged from article, then you lose the record. I can't think of a conceivable reason to need to completely erase the history of an article whose content you wish to merge into another. --Jayron32 20:24, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Isn't that what the essay is saying? That the closing admin should interpret "merge and delete" as "merge and redirect", or "merge and attribute another way, as listed in that essay". Dloh, I'm not an XfD expert, but I'm fairly sure I've seen someone do this fairly recently. They then protected the redirect to kind of "enforce" the AfD decision. Can't recall what page it was so I can't prove it, however. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:28, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

<<ec>>I guess no one know's about this anymore. Merge and delete has the purpose of preserving the edit history and content. It moves content not strong enough for an independent article to an existing article. It might be helpful to follow the link in the title, where the process is described. ~

Rollback

I'd like a review Regarding Jc revoking my Rollback rights. First of all, I've already discussed how much experience i need before Gaining the reviewer flag with another admin. Second, I don't think that was necessary becaue i did not abuse this right by reverting constructive edits. The right should only be removed if a user abuses it by wrongly reverting edits. I feel that revoke was unnecessary for my actions, Because i didn't realize my request had been declined a second time.--Anderson - What's up? 21:17, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Rollback and undo are not the same thing. Rollback can only be used for certain types of reverts: see Misplaced Pages:Rollback --Rschen7754 21:25, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

• If you want someone to look into this in detail, you're going to need to provide links to the various discussions I see hinted at on your talk page. However, my initial understanding is that due to too many requests for "reviewer", and not linking to previous rejections in new requests, jc37 took away the "rollbacker" right as well, because of "lack of trust", not because of misusing rollbacker. If that's what actually happened, then I disagree with the rollbacker removal. User rights aren't shouldn't be sticks or carrots used to reward or punish someone. I say give back the rollbacker right, but agree that reviewer isn't needed and should probably wait the 6 months recommended by Keilani. But again, this is all based on the assumption that I've understood what happened here. Flesh this out with links, please. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:44, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Anderson--Anderson - What's up? 21:50, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

My TP is the only source of discussion. I'm more then happy to wait 6 months before re-requeting reviewer rights.--Anderson - What's up? 21:55, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Well... yes, I know where your talk page is, that's how I pieced together what I pieced together so far. There are obviously other relevant places, though. Links to your requests for reviewer, for example if nothing else. Also, could you confirm my reading of the situation is correct? --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:08, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Still awaiting further diffs, and comment from Jc37, but anyone who does that sort of deception should not have the rollback tool. --Rschen7754 21:57, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

You don't think you're overstating the case just a little? Rollbacker is the most innocuous thing there is. It really ought to be handed out to everyone automatically after, say, 100 non-vandalism edits, and removed only upon misuse. If he was over-enthusiastic, or even "deceitful", in his reqest for reviewer, fine, tell him to knock it off. In fact, they did, and he said OK. But taking away the rollbacker bit when it hasn't been misused is just punishment. We aren't supposed to do punishment here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:08, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:PARENT. I consider anything like that to be deception, and that would include forum shopping. From what I can see, that is what this looks like, but still awaiting further diffs. --Rschen7754 22:38, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:YESIKNOWABOUTPARENTIVEBEENHEREAWHILETOOANDIMNOTANIDIOTALSOTHATSADISAMBIGUATIONPAGE. You didn't address my main point, though. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:43, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree with what "It really ought to be handed out to everyone automatically after, say, 100 non-vandalism edits, and removed only upon misuse.". After all, that is an opinion. --Rschen7754 22:58, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Noting that there was a period of >21 days in between requests. Probably not deliberate deception, but a bit careless. --Rschen7754 23:49, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

• I really don't see the point in removing the rollback right in this case. There is no indication that rollback has been misused and the unrelated conduct hardly justifies it in light of the rarity of rollback abuse and the limited harm caused when it does occur. Absent some evidence the right was abused in some way it should be restored. Monty₈₄₅ 22:12, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

(ec) I'm here - Give me a moment to add some diffs. If we try to take this in the best light, this is essentially a case of WP:IDHT, by what appears to be a hat collector. I've tried to disengage from the editor since the last notice, but they seem intent on pushing this along.

Anyway, bbiab. - jc37 22:16, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I haven't abused the tool, As i said above.--Anderson (Public) (talk) 22:33, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not trying to make a point, I just feel the removal of rollback was unjustified.--Anderson (Public) (talk) 22:50, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I've been following the situation, so I'd like to comment on my perception. Anderson initially requested reviewer rights. Keilana said that she'd rather differ to another admin, and Armbrust closed it on her behalf. Later, Anderson re-requested the flag and Jc closed it saying "Reposting the request after being declined causes me to wonder whether we should be assessing whether to trust with any additional tools.". Cyan Gardenvoir put the closure templates on that request. Next, Anderson requested it for the 3rd time, and Kudpung declined it. I believe that Jc thought that not linking to the previous two declines was a bit deceitful. Jc revoked rollback with the summary "Abuse of trust". Also, you can see Anderson's requests here. Electric Catfish 22:59, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

(my interpretation) If he deliberately deceived admins, that WOULD qualify as "Abuse of trust", and correspondingly diminish AGF, but it seems as likely that he was somewhat confused about the process, and maybe a little careless in his "reviewer" requests. Regardless, being enough confused about the process implies issues with WP:COMPETENCE. Revoking rollback rights shouldn't be a punishment. Granting them shouldn't be a reward. Granting them should be an measured extension of trust, pursuant to WP policy. If the trust fails due to abuse, or even good faith efforts based on a lower level of competence than was assumed, it merits reevaluation. Seeking to develop better competence would probably make User:Anderson a more effective reviewer and a more effective rollbacker in the future. Asking for help (and following advice given) could be a good path toward getting there.--Robert Keiden (talk) 23:44, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I know i requested RW 3 times. Revoking rollback when someone re-requests and then stops after being told to is no good reason to revoke a user's access to RB. I guess i just wanted it to edit with the return of the PC.--Anderson (Public) (talk) 23:12, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm concerned my rollback rights were revoked for no reason, Because JC did not respond to my comments on his TP.--Anderson (Public) (talk) 23:14, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Why are you accusing me of trying to deceive admins? I would never deceive anyone.--Anderson (Public) (talk) 23:52, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) My RB rights were not revoked due to WP:CIR.--Anderson (Public) (talk) 23:59, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not accusing you, but noted that others made that accusation. I disagree, but my comments were framed around that assumption. Your actions were interpreted as "deceptive", by some of the admins and users because they match up neatly with some of the things that deceptive people do. But ultimately its the behavior and not the reasons for it, that admins act on.--Robert Keiden (talk) 00:15, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

If you weren't trying to deceive them or game the system, the reason "Abuse of trust" may sound equivalent to "no reason", but when you made multiple requests without finding out why they were denied/closed implies Parent shopping, even if that's not what you meant. If rollback were an earned reward, and revocation really was punitive, then it does seem petty and undeserved. But I don't think that's what Jc meant, either. Hope you can still find some good faith here.--Robert Keiden (talk) 00:15, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

• OK, first, Electric Catfish, thank you very much for the links to the previous requests. I'm not sure why Anderson wouldn't provide them. I also saw the attempt at a conversation at Jc37's talk page, which was ignored. I'm not sure why Anderson didn't provide that. As annoying as this lack of help from Anderson is, it has nothing to do with rollback. Neither does the rather clumsy attempt to request a separate (completely meaningless!!) user right three times. (Sidenote: why on God's green earth is WP:PERM even accepting requests for reviewer?? It is 100% useless right now! Not 99%, 100%.) He's not being deceitful, he's being new. When we say "lack of trust", the only thing that makes sense is that we mean "lack of trust to use the tool you're requesting". I've seen no reason not to trust Anderson to use rollback correctly. If there is evidence of rollback misuse, please present it now. If not, I'm going to restore rollback in a little while (I'd really like to wait to hear from Jc37 first, in case there's some other aspect I'm missing). --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:09, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

• @Floquenbeam: Isn't "reviewer" one of the classes of user who can delete/edit/feature items in our wonderful new "Feedback" feature? (Also, is pending changes really totally, completely, 100% dead? - 'cause that's whatthe "reviewer" function was supposed to be for, no?) Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:50, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

• endorse restoration per -Floquenbeam if nothing further turns up that is concerning. Dlohcierekim 00:39, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Some chronology

Req for rollback:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_permissions/Rollback&diff=498560543&oldid=498558046

Result:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_permissions/Rollback&oldid=498563958#User:Anderson9990

Done by Keilana

First request for reviewer

• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_permissions/Reviewer&diff=prev&oldid=499524377

Slight canvassing (To keilana who granted rollback)

• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Keilana&diff=prev&oldid=499525954

My intermediary note for Keilana:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Keilana#Reviewer

results:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_permissions/Reviewer&oldid=499554878#User:Anderson9990

Anderson's note to keilana, following this:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Keilana#Requests_for_Permissions.2FReviewer

Later giving her a barnstar (11 July):

• http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Keilana#A_barnstar_for_you.21

Next req for rev

• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_permissions/Reviewer&diff=prev&oldid=503334948

(Though in this case anderson initially notes the decline)

But then

• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_permissions/Reviewer&diff=503540650&oldid=503521900

Anderson removed the note about the decline

Results:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_permissions/Reviewer&diff=503540650&oldid=503521900

I happened to notice it, and declined it

He was informed by others in this request that he didn't need reviewer for AFT due to having rollback.

Somewhere between the first request and the third request, anderson started to try to clerk on various pages, including request for permissions, AN/I and elsewhere, appearently causing disruption along the way, which others attempt to explain/stop (easier to just ask you all to read through anderson's talk page history and the subsequent discussions started at Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for permissions).

He also had some issues/confusions concerning his (presumably legitimate) sock.

And in the meantime has had his account renamed. (Nothing necessarily wrong with that, just noting it.)

3rd req for rev:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_permissions/Reviewer&diff=509005537&oldid=508998751

No notice about past declines and not noting for AFT this time but just PC. (Looking more and more like a hat collector.)

results:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_permissions/Reviewer&oldid=509189421#User:Anderson

Declined (by a different admin) due to lack of experience (again)

At which point, I notified him on his talk page "enough's enough", and removed his other "extra tools" as noted.

Just like before, I notified keilana.

He then apologises for not knowing that he needed more experience (even though this was explained to him at every step of this journey), and then asks me for rollback on my talk page, even though I suggested that if he continued asking for any tools he could be blocked - So I decided to disengage, rather than respond, and try to (hopefully) let it drop. (Trying to keep things from becoming any more confrontational than they already were.) (Though I did re-thread it, which should indicate at least that it was seen.)

He then attempts to ask keilana again, who says she supports the action for now, but if anderson really wants to have this reviewed, to ask for review at an admin noticeboard.

He, still not getting it, and continuing to push this further, deciding to this AN thread.

And so here we are.

(And as EC noted above, this shouldn't be a surprise to Anderson, as this possibility - possible removal of "extra tools" - was noted at the second decline.)

Removal of tools (similar to most admin actions) are to be preventative, not punitive. And removing extra tools from a user who is showing a repeated pattern of deceptiveness, of WP:PARENT (yes I know it's a dab page : ) - clearly abusing Misplaced Pages process, and also continues to disrupt through other actions, who obviously should not be trusted with "extra tools" at this time due to (at least) clear lack of experience or understanding, is preventative.

And note, "abuse of the tools" is not the only reason that they may be removed. Abuse of the community's trust is just as valid. And since all admin granted tools are granted at any admin's discretion, they may be removed per the same discretion by any admin.

As I said in my note above, this would seem to be a case of I didn't hear that, from someone who is apparently a hat collector. With the deceptiveness clearly abusing the community's trust; and the inexperience, continuing lack of understanding indicating good reason to not trust the user with "extra tools" as well.

Keilana gave him the rollback tool initially, and I'll happily defer to her judgement (as I have said before).

And I of course welcome others' thoughts on this.

But in the meantime, I'll stand by the removal. - jc37 00:39, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

ECF already provided the requests above. The community has decided this is no reason to revoke rollback.--Anderson (Public) (talk) 00:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Meta Request for Comment: Legal Fees Assistance Program

Copied from the Wikimedia Announcement mailing list with modifications to links, because this proposed program would apply to all administrators, bureaucrats, checkusers, oversighters, arbitrators, OTRS volunteers. Risker (talk) 23:36, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Many Wikimedians take on key support roles that help ensure that the community’s projects run smoothly and effectively. The Wikimedia Foundation -- under the lead of the Finance Department and the Legal and Community Advocacy Department -- is proposing the Legal Fees Assistance Program. This program is intended to help find qualified lawyers or pay for the legal defense fees of eligible users in specified support roles. The assistance would be available in the unlikely event those users were ever named in a legal complaint as a defendant because of their support roles on any Wikimedia project. The program would apply to all projects and languages.

We have started a request for comment to see what the community thinks of this proposed initiative, and we would like those who are interested to look at the proposed program itself and let us know your thoughts. If you have further questions, we have prepared an FAQ, and we will be available to discuss via the talk pages.

Many thanks,

Geoff
wmf:User:Gbrigham

Geoff Brigham
General Counsel
Wikimedia Foundation

Garfield
wmf:User:Gbyrd

Garfield Byrd
Chief of Finance and Administration
Wikimedia Foundation

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Administrative backlog