Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:52, 31 May 2013

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

Talk:Donald Trump#Proposal to supersede consensus #50

(Initiated 12 days ago on 10 January 2025) Seeking uninvolved closure; its degenerated into silly sniping and has clearly run its course. Slatersteven (talk) 16:46, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Talk:Xiaohongshu#Requested move 14 January 2025

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

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

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

Proposal: topic ban for Jax 0677 regarding templates

As follow up to an RFC/U without serious effect on User:Jax 0677 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to up the quality of the templates he produces, I have no other option than request a topic ban for this user. The outcome of Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Jax 0677 makes clear that there is no progress at all (at best, the result was very, very temporary). The RFC/U was filed by Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars and TenPoundHammer () and endorsed by 11 different edits, including me. ().

The topic ban I am seeking is one to prevent Jax 0677 from creating templates at all for a prolonged period of time.

The talkpage and the archives of the talkpage of mr. Jax show a worrying list of speedy deletions, proposed deletions and nominations for deletion (User talk:Jax 0677/Archive 1, User talk:Jax 0677/Archive 2, User talk:Jax 0677/Archive 3, User talk:Jax 0677/Archive 4, User talk:Jax 0677/Archive 5, User talk:Jax 0677/Archive 6, User talk:Jax 0677) of his templates.

The discussions on the pages "Template for Deletion" often have the same pattern.

1. this, this and this are not linked to each other (random selection: , , , )
2. WP:NENAN is just an essay. (usually when he has no arguments regarding to the content of the template).
3. the article is too long to add wikilinks (
4. I don't know how to add wikilinks to articles.() That is quite remarkable after creating about a thousand (1000) templates?

Each and every template for discussion gets a drawn out battle to preserve the template, many times to the point of filibustering. (Example: ) And many of his templates are deleted, rescued by others or suddenly get enough relevant links to be kept (after nomination).()

Interesting is also his habit to "claim". I don't have a clue how many page names he has already claimed by making a redirect on the name of an album to the name of the group. That must be hundreds. Unfortunately, he did the same with templates. To be precise 179 times. The discussion page shows quite nicely that he is in fact gaming the system and has always a nice pointy policy/essay to waive with, while on the other hand claiming that WP:NENAN is just an essay. I must admit, after being hammered at this point he did not do it again. The nasty part is that I don't have the idea that he would have stopped this behaviour when he was not hammered for it.

It is quite a pattern that he moves from this to that, makes a mess of it and than apologizes for that because he is new on the subject as if there are no manuals or other editors to ask for help or advice.(, , )

I see no improvement in the quality of his templates but I do see a lot of effort put in his dodgy work by others, be it in the drawn out discussion or in plain improving his work. I have given up hope that he can improve to a reasonable standard with templates, so I propose a topic ban to prevent him from creating new templates at all. The Banner talk 15:39, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support - I'm not exactly a regular at TfD or wherever, but I've participated in the RFC/U, and I've seen this user's misdeeds firsthand at AfD. This needs to stop, now, and they refuse almost all attempts to help them, so a topic ban is required. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Like Luke, I'm not a big template guy, but every encounter I've had with this editor has involved a raging case of WP:IDHT, which is the case here too. At some point he'll come here and tell us that WP:BITE somehow protects him, ignoring the fact that after 25,000+ edits, he's no newbie. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support I wouldn't say there haven't been improvements to his template creations, particularly after the RfC/U, but if there is someone who just wants to do the bare minimum to get things done and move on, it would be Jax. Before, he would just create navboxes with only 5 links to pass the threshhold of WP:NENAN, despite the fact the navbox topic had plenty of candidate articles to include; but now, it's as if he's looking for those topic candidates that have the bare mininum of possibly related articles and creating those navboxes, so recent TfDs are just about what counts or not to meet "the rule of five". Because he can usually fix or improve them after being taken to TfD, he can claim a fairly large success rate at TfD. Unfortunately, that's part of Jax's problem. He takes pride in this and refuses to understand how much of everyone's time he is wasting (including his own) through the debate process. The goal of the RfC/U was to reduce the number of navboxes he's created taken to TfD and that's not happening per Banner's comments and my points above. He likes to point out that WP:NENAN is just an essay, yet his sole motivation seems to be driven by another essay, WP:ANOEP, per his comments here. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars 16:52, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support - The RFC/U generated a brief improvement in behaviour but that as rather temporary. -- Whpq (talk) 17:03, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support per above. His behavior improved temporarily, but I see no evidence that he's learned. I'm still seeing him filibuster to save his templates, and I'm still seeing him rushing out templates with too little content. Ten Pound Hammer • 19:03, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support, unfortunately necessary. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support based on his demonstration below that he doesn't really understand the problem. Six months, maybe? He's been creating templates for about two years now, so a six-month break would be pretty significant. Perhaps others would prefer a year. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:48, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support I don't know whether it's a problem of competence or intentional disregard of others' advice, but Jax 0677 needs to stop making templates. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 03:21, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Jax taking a break from creating templates seems like a wise step.  Gong show 15:30, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I am a bit in limbo about the scope of the topic ban. Banning him from creating new templates is an essential part. But must he be banned from the Template for Discussion-procedure too? His past production should be checked and without doubt that will some new TfD-discussions with the aforementioned effects. The Banner talk 11:08, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• • I would suggest it be a ban on any activity relating to templates, broadly construed. The only exception would be the usual one of reverting obvious vandalism. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:07, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Response from Jax_0677

Oppose - While I have made mistakes in the past with my navigation templates (hereinafter referred to as "navboxes"), I have dramatically improved the quality of my work over the past few months, and in my opinion, have made no dramatic mistakes in navboxes since April 25, 2013 when the RfC against me was proposed for closure. The navboxes that I have created during the last few months have had all related articles that I can contemplate included in the navbox, and the navbox has been included in all of the articles in question, with the exception of some of the "Related" articles. While eleven editors approved of the RfC, a topic ban is not a popularity contest.

The majority of the navboxes that I have created have NOT been deleted, and many have been kept. According to WP:POORLY and WP:TOOSHORT, many of these navboxes should never have been brought to TfD in the first place , as the navboxes had the potential to satisfy the requirements despite their imperfections.

To the alleged "pattern":

1. Navboxes are designed to improve connectivity
2. I (as well as others) have replied that WP:NENAN is an essay for navboxes that have four links (not including the parent article). The four links do not usually connect to one another without the navbox. Navboxes for Template:Anata and Template:Analog Rebellion have indeed been kept after TfD with four links. In some cases, NENAN was argued long before the "rule of five" excluded the parent article.
3. If an article is long, it will be difficult to find the links within the article. For this reason, I have added the navbox, which I believe I have the right to do so long as there are a sufficient number of related articles. Additionally, I cannot predict which articles will be deleted before the navbox is finished. I therefore allowed Template:Flynn Adam to go forth and be deleted, because the articles were deleted after I finished the navbox. I created Template:Beyond Fear over one year ago before I understood that the NENAN "rule of five" does not include certain related articles.
4. What I meant is that I can not find a good place in the articles to add the links. It is much easier to add one navbox to five or more articles than it is to add four "See Also" sections.

I am well within my right to dispute any legitimate charges against me or the navboxes that I create by stating legitimate points about why the navbox should be kept. According to the filibuster article on Misplaced Pages, "A filibuster is a type of parliamentary procedure where debate is extended, allowing one or more members to delay or entirely prevent a vote on a given proposal", which I can not do on a written forum.

I have not "claimed" a template name in more than several months. I stopped claiming template names weeks before the September 14th RfD was filed against me on dozens of articles. Fixing this error was a large undertaking, which I completed in a timely manner. I am also well within my right to redirect the name of an album or song to the applicable musician or ensemble per WP:NSONG.

I have only recently started creating navboxes about universities, and while the community does not want for me to make mistakes on these navboxes, it is going to happen. These navboxes have had all of the links about the university that I can contemplate, have been placed on all of the articles except some related articles, which is all that I have been told to do. In fact, 100% of the university navboxes that I have created that were brought to TfD have been kept, with few links added to them.

The Banner is not able to name one navbox that I have created since April 25, 2013 (one month ago tomorrow) AFTER the RfC on me was proposed for closure that was not done at least reasonably correctly per User_talk:The_Banner#Topic_Ban_Proposal. The mistake I made was listing LBC Crew under "Related" instead of "Musical ensembles", which in my opinion, is minimal at best, considering that the four other links in the navbox do not all link to one another.

Niteshift36 has repeatedly called me the "D" word on numerous occasions.

I feel that this Topic Ban, and many of the TfDs being filed against me are that my navboxes are not perfect instead of an effort to improve the encyclopedia. I feel that I am being hammered just for making small mistakes.

Again, while I have made mistakes in the past, this is not a popularity contest, nor a device by which to punish users who are attempting to create an encyclopedia. Topic Bans are an effort to protect the encyclopedia from users that want to damage it. The fact that my recent mistakes have been minimal at best, that many of the TfDs are simply walking out of my past (which should curb over time now that I have added to a navbox every article that I can contemplate and have added that navbox to all of the articles in that navbox with the exception of some related articles) and that I was new to university navboxes and coloring them that a topic ban on anything other than universities is not in order at this time.

I can not control which of my creations are taken to TfD, but I can act to make my navboxes better.

I will be happy to answer any questions about navboxes that you have, or to address any issues stated in the Topic Ban that I may not have covered. No question is out of bounds, and I will answer them all, even if the answer is that it is none of your business.

Thank you very much for your attention.

Sincerely,

Jax_0677 --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:09, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Excuses, excuses, excuses and poor Jax is the innocent victim of a bunch of nasty guys. Backed up with a lot of distracting links to other pages. Unfortunately, your answer only illustrates that you don't understand or plainly ignore the problem. The Banner talk 17:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Reply - The vast majority of my efforts have contributed to a fuller encyclopedia, and I have addressed all issues against me here. I only said that "a topic ban is not a popularity contest", and The Banner seems to be acting sarcastically here.

1. Which links are distracting, and why are they distracting?
2. What exactly/specifically do I not "understand"?
3. If The Banner is ignoring my questions, how can The Banner critique me for ignoring the problem?
4. I have asked The Banner this before, and The Banner could not come up with one legitimate answer, so I ask again. Can one navbox that I wrote related to music started AFTER the RfC on me was proposed for closure (on April 25, 2013) that was not done at least reasonably correctly be named? --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• 1) What is "the D word"? Maybe I need to use it again. It can't be "dick" because I said you were being a dick once in that discussion. Of course, call a spade a spade might apply here. 2)What does that AFD have to do with this other than to be a perfect example of how you latch onto a single essay (in that case WP:CHEAP) and just repeat it over and over as if it were given from above on 2 stone tablets? 3) Are you over the age of 12? If you are, the whole "Niteshift called me a name" routine is fairly childish looking.Niteshift36 (talk) 18:03, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that you fail to grasp that your behaviour and sloppy work is the problem here. You did indeed enough work to fill the encyclopedia, but your work is too often just ballast. More letters and digits, no worthy content. The Banner talk 18:06, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Reply - To Niteshift36:

1. The "D" word is what you just said. Policy states that one should be cautious about referring to another individual by using that article.
2. The fact that Niteshift36 referred to me using that article during the AfD once is enough to call Niteshift36's character into question.
3. I am over the age of 12, but I won't give out my age. The fact that Niteshift36 referred to me using that article calls Niteshift36's character into question.

To The Banner:

1. I have justified most if not all of my responses, and The Banner has the burden of proof that I have not. The Banner has failed to produce any "sloppy work" on music templates that I have started in the past 30 days, nor has The Banner proven that I have filibustered.
2. I would hardly call my work ballast with zero worthy content. I have produced several hundred templates over the past several months. The point is, that the goal of a topic ban is not to reprimand, but is to protect the encyclopedia. My navboxes have been of decent quality as of late. The things that are going to TfD are walking out of my past, and in some cases were started more than one year ago. I allowed Template:Beyond Fear and "Template:Arkaea" to proceed unabated because I realized after the fact that many "Related" articles do not count toward the NENAN rule of five.

To All:
While I understand that some of my templates should go to TfD, I am very frustrated that there are MANY templates at TfD that should not have ever been brought there in the first place , which includes templates with 5 relevant links. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:19, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

If you understand that some your templates should go to TfD, I recommend not creating such templates. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars 23:32, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Reply - In many of those cases, such as "template:dnbtu" and "template:unco", hindsight is 20/20. What I should have said is that "While I understand that some of my templates should have gone to TfD..." --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• Well, if this were a RFC about my character, your reply might have something to contribute. As it stands, it's a pointless red herring. First, my saying that you're being a dick isn't a matter of character. It's behavior. Second, none of that has any bearing on your inability to follow the standards. One could easily call your avoidance of the discussing your own actions by complaining about the actions of someone else months ago could be called dickish. And I didn't ask you to divulge your age. I asked if you were over the age of 12, an age where the "he called me a name" thing usually stops looking like a valid defense. Either way, I highly doubt bitching whining complaining about it will convince others to change their support of topic banning you. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:00, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Reply - OK, I have read WP:BLUDGEON, and I realize that I may need to respond to several items at once with shorter answers (i.e. "Navbox has a sufficient number of links") instead of responding to one item at a time with longer comments. With that being said, if my music navboxes have been of acceptable quality for the past month, if several of the unchanged navboxes have passed TfD, my most recent university navboxes have also been of acceptable quality, and the issue is the method by which I participate in TfD discussions , I think it would be prudent to only ban me from TfD, not from actually creating navboxes. Assuming that I were banned from TfD, I would have no method by which to defend navboxes that I have created. In the interest of answering all questions, calling me the "D" word is in violation of WP:CIVIL. Thoughts?
Additionally, I feel that have been unduly scolded for making simple the simple mistake of placing {{tianu}} and {{wtw}} on the wrong people's pages. I know people do not want me to make any mistakes, but it is going to happen. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:11, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Outside editor comment - I think you've missed the point, Jax. We all make mistakes but the issue here is not that people don't want you making mistakes. It's that they don't want you making the same mistakes, repeatedly, ad nauseam, hence the proposal for a topic ban. The fact that 11, not the usual 2, but 11 editors endorsed an RFC on your editing is very, very damning. Blackmane (talk) 01:12, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Reply - I have read WP:BLUDGEON and I have recently improved the quality of my navboxes. The fact is that we are where we are. --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:35, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• Still worrying about "the D word"? Just reinforces what I've been saying. Keep proving me correct. It's becoming a parody at this point. As for your misuse of {tianu}, here is an idea....just stop using it. Stop being the template police and just keep your nose out of other people's affairs. You clearly have enough trouble managing your own affairs. Leave the misplaced concerns for someone else to worry about. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:33, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Reply - I was only pointing out a violation of WP:CIVIL. I have kept {{tianu}} for users who have few edits and/or made their first edits only weeks ago. I don't believe I am acting like template police if many of my navboxes with over 6 links are being sent to TfD and being kept. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:05, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• Well, maybe you should just keep your nose out of it since you're not doing such a good job. And clearly, you weren't paying close attention and checking edit histories or you wouldn't have placed it on pages with substantial numbers of edits. Then you turn around and blame it on BOLD....that's your problem. You never just admit an error, you always use some essay to justify your mistakes and then repeat it over and over. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:49, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Reply - Niteshift36, "I admit that the statements that I have given during TfD discussions have been lengthy, and perhaps I need to shorten them". I have checked edit histories as of late before using {{tianu}}, so I am learning from my mistakes. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:17, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• And why? Not because you listened to the people there. Because you read another essay. In any case, I still support your topic ban. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:34, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Reply - The essay clarified what people were saying. Also, if my statements during TfD are the problem, why should I be banned from creating new templates? --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:35, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Ban on my participation in TfD versus ban on my creating navboxes

I notice that this proposal for topic ban arose out of two things:

1. My imperfections surrounding University navboxes
2. My statements given during TfD discussions

I have only been working on university navboxes for a short period of time, and have improved the quality of such navboxes dramatically over the past few days. With that being said, I am not certain that it is prudent to ban me from creating navboxes. I admit that the statements that I have given during TfD discussions have been lengthy, and perhaps I need to shorten them. However, if my navboxes have improved to an acceptable level as of late, prohibiting me from creating new navboxes may not necessarily protect the encyclopedia. While I have made mistakes in the past, the fact is that we are where we are. Thank you! --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:05, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

We have seen that the quality of your work collapsed as soon as you had the idea we were not looking any more. The Banner talk 10:46, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Reply - I never had the idea that no one was looking, and no one can prove that is the case. At User_talk:Jax_0677/Archive_3#Megas, Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars told me:

1. Add all pertinent and relevant articles to the navbox, not just 5 (unless that's all there is).
2. Add the navbox to each of the articles listed in the navbox (although not necessarily to all "related articles")

He never said anything about the formatting of the navbox nor that all related articles do not count toward the rule of five, and again, that was the first time I have created university navboxes. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:49, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

The final proposal

I propose a six month topic ban from any activity relating to templates, broadly construed. The Banner talk 10:46, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Reply - This statement is vague, and should at least be clarified. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it's not vague so much as all encompassing. The proposal can be basically summed up as a topic ban from the creation of templates, discussion of templates at TfD (whether they are your creations or not) and editing of existing templates. (If I've missed anything, please feel free to add them in.) Blackmane (talk) 13:57, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I do not know why I seem to care or am mentioning anything here, but I would rather see a user like this mentored in the proper creation of said templates than simply told not to create any for any length of time. I firmly believe that we learn by doing, making mistakes, being told what specific mistakes we made, and then not making those mistakes again. The first step there is doing. I feel that if there was to be a topic ban of sorts imposed, that it should be for no longer than about a month during which time Jax should be reading all of the "How to build a template" documentation and bettering and learning about parser functions, magic words, transclusion, and all of the other goodies that are kind of required if a person really wants to be able to create good templates. I'm going to stop babbling now before this gets tl;dr... Technical 13 (talk) 14:14, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Reply - Trying to be perfectly objective, I agree with Technical 13, in that "we learn by doing, making mistakes, being told what specific mistakes we made, and then not making those mistakes again". After being told how to create university navboxes, I have improved the quality of such navboxes dramatically. While {{IPFW}} did not start out ideal, all of the links were still there. Additionally, since I have had few to no issues with existing navboxes, I do not feel it is prudent to preclude me from working on existing navboxes, or to preclude me from working on anything other than navboxes, if that is even the best solution. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:29, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

This may be an idealistic view, but consider this ban as an enforced sabbatical so that others can look into the ones you have created and deal with them whether they can be kept, improved or, failing that, deleted without having to worry that new problematic templates will appear. In this period, it would be looked upon most favourably if you did go and look for a mentor to discuss template creation. The question that some may raise would why did it take an RFC/U and a topic ban proposal for you to consider this as opposed to doing exactly that when the first issues were raised with regards to your templates? Blackmane (talk) 20:01, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Reply - I was under the impression that templates could be stubs, just like articles could be stubs (stubs are speedily deleted on Spanish Misplaced Pages). I will answer the question with a question. What have I done since April 25, 2013 that rises to the level of a template ban, instead of perhaps a ban on university navboxes combined with a ban on participating in ANY template for discussion forums? Also, if a ban is imposed, it needs to be specified whether or not the ban includes userspace navboxes. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:10, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

The ban proposal is not time limited to how far back an editor's behaviour is considered, although common sense is usually applied such that for editors who have been here for years things they did several years ago are generally discounted. However, an editor's actions within the last 6 - 9 months are usually considered fair game for assessment. I don't intend on supporting/opposing as I haven't delved back far enough so making any sort of judgement on incomplete information on my part would not be fair. Unless others make vehement objections to it, i think an allowance for userspace only navboxes would be reasonable. It would be patently ridiculous to topic ban you from making templates and encourage you to learn how to do it better without giving you some sort of area to do your testing and learning. However, I am not familiar with how templates are transcluded around so I'll have to leave that to more experienced voices to discuss. Blackmane (talk) 08:58, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I am in favor of a 6-month ban on creating templates and participating in TfD and a 1-month ban on editing templates. After the first month, earlier creations can be improved/fixed/completed, in particular any that are brought to TfD. He can do that without the need to participate in the TfD itself. The improvements must be in line with the concerns raised here and in the RfC/U. Any questions brought up on his talk page should be immediately addressed and no further editing should be done until resolved. However, I will not object to support the harsher ban. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars 17:36, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Jax, if it was me, I would jump to indicate that this offer is fair and perhaps request the ability to create sandbox drafts of potential navbox creations to be reviewed by another editor that subscribes to NENAN after 2-3 months. Technical 13 (talk) 02:24, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars's proposal seems reasonable and addresses the issue. I would be in support of this, and also would not object to the harsher ban if this proposal doesn't gain traction. -- Whpq (talk) 12:03, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Reply - You know what, if I am allowed to create navboxes within my own userspace, I think that I could go along with something like this, with potential eligibility for monitored creation of navboxes after a few weeks. If the quality of my recent templates is an indication, I think this could work. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:20, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose "a few weeks" unless you consider 10-12 weeks a few. I've gone out of my way to try and help you here Jax (I still have no clue why, I guess I'm just good natured that way), and I've made comments as to what would be your best case scenario and you don't seem to get it. Despite my suggestion, which would have been huge in your favor being able to do it after a few months, you try to squeak it down to a few weeks. That is just not going to fly here.
• I'll give you one last bit of advice before I make my final recommendation and request an uninvolved admin/editor to close this. IF after 2-3 months you have read through all of the template making guides and fully understand how they work and whatnot, and I encourage you to attempt to re-create the whole navbox system on test.wikipedia as a learning exercise, then I would offer that you might want to get a hold of me via email and I would be happy to come back here on your behalf and offer the examples and work you have done on testwiki as examples of your ability to work on templates and an understanding of them. I think that most of the administrators here (although I will be honest that I do not agree with all of them most of the time), are fair enough that they would be willing to relax this ban based on those examples to perhaps Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars's proposal. If not, I would be willing to help you go to arbcom based on your demonstration of understanding on testwiki and request some intervention.
• Now, that all being said, I retract my original support of Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars's proposal and think that a full "all inclusive template topic ban" is appropriate at this time due to Jax's inability to "get it". Technical 13 (talk) 12:04, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Reply - I left the number of weeks open to interpretation on purpose to allow discussion based on my ability to create navboxes in my user space, as I will agree with 10-12 weeks and Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars' proposal. What is the URL for test.wikipedia, and to what does "whole navbox system" refer? What exactly is it that do I not "get"? The goal of a ban is to protect the encyclopedia, not to punish users. My most recent music navboxes have been of reasonable quality as far as I can tell, and I have done everything that I can to demonstrate this. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

You are talking around yourself 10-12 weeks is the 2-3 months I stated and you made a fool of yourself in my opinion and I no longer wish to play your game. Test[REDACTED] can be found at http://test.wikipedia.org (since it is so simple, I assume that you spend no time trying to figure it out and will not carry through with my suggestion) and the whole navbox system that you would have to copy over and recreate there (since it is a test wiki and none of it exists there if you want to make other navboxes) would include {{Navbox}} and all of the templates that it uses to be functional. I'll leave figuring out which ones it needs to you as a learning exercise (experiment?). What you don't get is the fact that you did something wrong or something you shan't have done to get yourself here and instead of just saying, "yes sirs and madams, I did do ___ and that was not correct because ___ and I agree to not every do it again, what can I do to make it right?" and then follow up with "thank you for offering me this chance to make things right (or if the case is that there is nothing you can do except sit back and observe and read the documentation then it would be thanks for this learning opportunity)." and taking what-ever offer you can get, you are trying to weasel months into weeks and when caught saying yeah, trying to weasel out of that too... It is very transparent... I'm unwatching this thread now but would be happy to hear from you in 3 months (that is 13.5 weeks by my notes) in an email requesting me to review something you have created on testwiki. Note that there are places to get help with templates if you get stuck and need to ask a question about how to do something with a template outside of en.wikipedia ( http://mediawiki.org http://meta.wikimedia.org IRC )... That being said, I've found getting responses in those places can be difficult and might make one final plea for a little lee-way to allow this user's topic ban to only allow the topic of templates to be brought up by this user in an attempt to learn how a specific function works in an appropriate venue such as VPT or WikiProject Templates. Anyways, I'm done discussing it. Technical 13 (talk) 14:17, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Reply - I am playing no "games", and there is no proof that I am doing this nor that I am "weaseling". I have admitted to making navboxes that are incomplete in the past , and have worked to the best of my ability to correct this issue, and will continue to work to correct this issue. I can not promise 100% that I will not make any more mistakes with navboxes or anything else for that matter. As Op47 said, if a featured article has an incomplete navbox, it might no longer be a featured article. I have not made any horrible mistakes with music navboxes since April 25, 2013, and have not made any horrible mistakes with university navboxes either in the past week or two. I have answered all of the questions placed before me, I have worked diligently to correct the issues presented. I will do my best to shorten my comments in XfD discussions. I do not know what else I can do at this point, because no matter what I am doing now , it is never enough. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:52, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support 6 month ban on anything to do with templates, broadly construed, as proposed. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:23, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support 6 months, broadly construed. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:32, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support 6 month ban on anything to do with templates, broadly construed, as proposed (tho with an exemption for Jax's own userspace).
  Given the scale and duration of Jax's disruption, I would readily support a longer ban ... but I guess 6 months is enough for now. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:29, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support 6 month ban. I wasn't going to throw my hat into the ring, but will support based on the recalcitrant behaviour displayed here. I'd also support an exemption for their own userspace.Blackmane (talk) 00:54, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support ban. I've been lurking, and this just looks like a completely intractable behavior problem. I'd also like to add that I think that userspace edits should be allowed, and that by petition (edit request? ask here?) template-like pages in userspace could be moved into template space and added to articles, but it needs to be done by an admin familiar with the case, not by Jax him/her self. VanIsaac_{WS Vex} 01:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support per BrownHairedGirl et al. I'd also support a provision to reset the TB to "day one" in the event of any related disruptive editing, broadly construed. And I hate supporting restrictions... Begoon  03:27, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Given that the more lenient proposal has failed to gain traction. -- Whpq (talk) 03:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Punishment for my history versus protection of the encyclopedia

Request for closer

I'm requesting any un-involved individual to close this, there is no need to waste any more time here and WP:SNOW has become apparent. Technical 13 (talk) 10:42, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Interpreting involvedness

Right folks, here is a question on admin conduct and use of tools to settle a difference of opinion....

As an admin, let's say I find an article that has some content which violates some guidelines such as a BLP with material sourced from a tabloid (or medical article using primary sources or whatever), and I remove that content. Now let's say another editor is unhappy with this and reverts. Now if this continues, am I as an admin allowed to block the person? I'd say "no" and instead alert a noticeboard for a hitherto uninvolved admin as I have adopted a position, but if the consensus is here that I can then I am happy to go with consensus. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:38, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, the BLP would be a special case: you're protecting a living person. I'll think a bit on the other - it appears to me that the article is not something you typically edit - you stumbled across it for some reason, and it should not make you involved (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:48, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Casliber has sufficient wiki status that they could probably get away with it under the "any reasonable admin" common sense provision / loophole but it's just better not to. Two editors relaying the same message once is superior to a single editor saying the same thing like five times with links to policies and all that. It's a lot harder for a misguided editor to think a "power hungry admin" is picking on them if their calm, neutrally worded report on the appropriate noticeboard is validated by a second voice. And no, posting on boards doesn't "cause drama" -- it's how folks react to posting that determines whether there is the dreaded dramaz or not. NE Ent 10:51, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Ent makes a good point. If the edit was purely maintenance (removing blp problems on an article I've never edited, I would call maintenance) and not preference, it isn't involved, but drama is a bigger issue than policy. If it isn't urgent, I would just ask someone else to review. If it is very disruptive, I've been known to block, then just drop a note here and ask for review, which is usually quick and painless. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 12:49, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect to User:Bwilkins, I am not on board with the argument that a correction of a BLP violation is an exemption to being involved. It is an exemption to 3RR, but that's a different kettle of fish. I do agree that a pure maintenance edit should not be construed as involved, I am surprised (and disagree) that removing a BLP violation is what we mean by maintenance. I think of maintenance as correcting typos, spelling, fixing malformed references, etc. So I would strongly support reporting the editor, rather than doing the blocking oneself. It isn't like there is a shortage of admins. (I can imagine an exception—if it was a time when few were around, and the editor was making multiple seriously bad edits, it would be acceptable to block, then ask for a block review, but that doesn't fit the circumstances of the hypothetical.)--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:18, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Agree with SPhilbrick, one of the main purposes of not involved, is that the single admin is not both prosecutor and judge in substantive editing decisions that call for consensus. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:27, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

It depends on the BLP violation, granted, but if an admin reverts "Bob is a known Nazi sympathizer" then I don't see how that makes him involved, and do consider that maintenance. Like everything else around here "it depends", but removing a BLP violation can be purely maintenance if the only reason it was removed was to make it comply with policy, just as fixing a formatting error makes it comply with MOS. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 13:36, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I was going to go a little further. An editor adds "Bob is gay" to an article, and you - the admin - remove it. The editor comes back and adds "Bob's well-known homosexual partner is Some Otherguy" with or without a false citation. I'm sorry, that admin can block, should block, and should also re-revert the BS BLP violations. This is not rocket science - it's about protecting the project and the person (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:02, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't disagree. The motivation for the edit is key in determining what is maintenance and what is editorial. And again, if you think that someone might question it, drop it off here afterwards. That removes all doubt, and is usually quickly closed after a couple of editors review it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 18:08, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Would you say the same about: "Bob is known Nazi sympathizer " ? Just on your interpretation of BLP = meaning it is the case that the statement is NPOV (relevant) and verifiable. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:45, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Probably not if it was actually in the source, unless there was some other factor clearly indicating it was added in malice or intentionally as a BLP violation (editor or article history, prior warnings, etc.) This falls under "it depends" and the more specific you get, the harder it is to generalize. This is why if I must block to prevent ongoing disruption now in a case that is borderline, I post here and ask for review. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 13:57, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Alan & SPhilbrick, I disagree. Currently, an admin can protect a page and, then, remove a blatant BLP violation; that's accepted and nobody would reproach the protecting admin for his actions. So I don't see why doing the reverse should be any different: an admin who removes a blatant BLP violation and then protects the page when another editor reverts his edits (or blocks the editor in question) should not be censured. Of course, that's merely IMHO. Salvio 13:46, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

(e/c)Any editor can remove a blatant BLP violation repeatedly. So, they are acting as an editor not as an administrator, and involved in an editing dispute, so another administrator should do the administrator things. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:13, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

That's immaterial: warnings can be issued by anyone (and, so, an admin warning someone is acting as an editor), but I can block someone I've just warned... Salvio 15:52, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

A warning is not editing an article, and it's not editing another editor's edits. A warning is a statement of administrative standards, without editing another editors edits, so it is not an editorial function. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:22, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay - yes these are egregious examples - but what if it was more subtle than that? Say, material which is seemingly innocuous but either unsourced or sourced to a tabloid (in a BLP) or is a primary source (in a medical article) and not overtly malicious? Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:06, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

My perspective is that you let someone else block if waiting is reasonable. If they are active and you feel you must block now, and you can do so under the exception to WP:INVOLVED, you block then immediately drop it off here for instant review. This way if you are wrong, the damage can be minimized. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 16:06, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Right, to put this all in perspective, this does refer to a recent situation at the article Connie Talbot. Essentially admin John (talk · contribs) removed segments of material sourced only to tabloids, which the main contributor J Milburn (talk · contribs) objected to and reverted. John reverted that twice. There was much heated conversation at User_talk:John#Talk:Connie_Talbot, Talk:Connie_Talbot#Tabloid_sources and User_talk:J_Milburn#May_2013 - in the last there is some discussion between me and John, who opines that he is able to block other editors on the Connie Talbot page as he isn't involved. Anyway, so I wasn't the admin but a wiki-friend of the editor being threatened with a block. As far as the original dustup, J Milburn has promised to look for other sources. I do take exception to content editors being treated like naughty schoolchildren and am bemused at John stating I'm unaware of involved. After we talked past each other, I mentioned I'd seek 2nd/3rd opinions...so what do folks think...is John involved in this scenario? Or am I interpreting it too broadly? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:19, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Color me dense, but I don't see how statements like "It is also available as a 13 track mp3 album without a bonus track from Amazon.com.Amazon" are a BLP issue . So John was definitely involved as a regular editor. 5.12.68.204 (talk) 00:40, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Seeing how you have no reason to be bothering these people -- The color you want me to paint is a color I cannot say. †TE†Talk 00:54, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Colour me confused.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:27, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

This edit makes him look involved. Others may as well. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ / Join WER 18:12, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - this is all helpful. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Requests for comment on user:Xenophrenic

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

There is currently a WP:RFC/U on User:Xenophrenic. There is an ongoing arbitration case in which many editors involved in the WP:RFC/U, including user:Xenophrenic, user: Malke 2010, user:Arthur Rubin, and user:North8000, are parties to. On the tea party moved, the Arbitration Committee has examined the evidence. As of now, the likly finding of fact for User:Xenophrenic is:

Xenophrenic has edited Tea Party movement since March 2010, and is the second leading contributor with 397 edits - 63 of which have been reverts; 5 of which are identified as self-reverts or removing vandalism. Xenophrenic was blocked in 2011 for breaking community sanctions on Tea Party movement, and was blocked twice in 2007 and once in 2013 for edit warring on other articles. Xenophrenic has made 573 edits to the talkpage. There was no community support for a topic ban, Xenophrenic is not named as a party, and there is little evidence presented in the case to point to sanctions.

By point of bring this up here, is that very few of the editors involved in the WP:RFC/U are unbiased, including myself. Most are involved in the Arbitration case or at least involved in editing articles on U.S. Politics. With that being the case, I would ask that non-involved editors take a look at the WP:RFC/U. The Link is here.

I don't know what is going on here but Casprings just dumped part of Xenophrenic's user page onto my talk page: . Malke 2010 (talk) 16:39, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Casprings is edit warring on my talk page:

Malke 2010 (talk) 16:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I am not "edit waring". I was trying to correctly format a notification of this discussion. As noted, I made a mistake on how I linked user:Xenophrenic name in the title of the notification. I was trying to fix that.Casprings (talk) 16:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Casprings, you had to deliberately go to Xenophrenic's User page, copy that content and then dump it on my talk page. That's vandalisim. Then when I came here and posted a link to it, you went back and removed it. I put it back so the link would make sense, and then you edit warred over it. What is going on here? There is a certified RfC/U on Xenophrenic and you've come here to complain about it? Whatever you think you're doing, please stop doing it on my talk page. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• No you don't. You just have to link a user name with {{, instead of

Which obviously you did in order to vandalize my talk page. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:14, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• Yeah, it isn't like they are on the same key on the keyboard or anything. No way, that could have been a mistake. I was trying to inform you of this discussion, and made a mistake in the title. Thus you got the message. I than went back to fix it. Casprings (talk) 17:18, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

What is this, a duplicate venue? North8000 (talk) 16:55, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea what he's trying to accomplish here. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Whatever's going on, it's disruptive, and I'm getting a dimmer and dimmer view of everyone whom I've seen to be involved. Xenophrenic tried to get the RFCU deleted even though it qualified, Phoenix and Winslow (one user) has been using my words rather...strangely to make it sound as if I supported the RFCU certifiers' statements and has also petitioned for my involvement, and now Casprings is disrupting Malke's talk and duplicating venues without good reason. Nyttend (talk) 17:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

As noted, I made a mistake on the notification. I used {{, instead of

I have no idea what the OP is trying to achieve here, but anything that requires administrator attention is already being dealt with at the ArbCom case. Stop it. Black Kite (talk) 17:54, 27 May 2013 (UTC)}}

I don't think there is consensus to close this. The major point of this is to ask for some input into an WP:RFC/U, which could use some outside eyes. Casprings (talk) 18:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Wow. Can we just discuss whatever's bothering you at the RfC/U Talk page, please? Thanks ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

BLP issue?

Initially, this RfC/U contained little concrete evidence. After advice on presenting evidence was offered by a most experience Wikipedian, the problem was rectified by one of the certifiers . However, I'm concerned that the new evidence contains statements like " is possibly the most hated Democratic member of the House besides ". These are the words of one the certifiers, not of Xenophrenic, with the name of the living persons elided by myself in this copy. My question for the administration is: is this kind of statement normally made in RfC/Us? I admittedly have not read many such RfCs, but this is the first time I see such a statement in one. 5.12.68.204 (talk) 23:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't see that as a problem. I don't know whether it's common in RFCUs, but it's not the kind of thing that's an attack. Remember that this is very different from saying "XX is the worst Democratic member of the House" — unlike that, "most hated" simply talks about other people's opinions of XX. Watch enough TV or listen to enough radio and you'll sometimes even find politicians proclaiming "____ group of people hates me" as evidence that they're doing a good job fighting that group's eeeevil intentions. Nyttend (talk) 01:55, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I've looked at the biographies of the two politicians in question, but I did not see any self-identification of the kind you describe above, nor did I see any polling about the public opinion in this matter. But I accept your finding that it falls within the realm of acceptable speech about public figures on Misplaced Pages. 5.12.68.204 (talk) 05:03, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Another RfC/U participant thought eventually that it was a BLP violation . 5.12.68.204 (talk) 16:20, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't meaning that these politicians self-identified as such; I mean that this is the kind of thing that occasionally gets noised about in various places. I can't give you a specific example. Nyttend (talk) 18:05, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

From WP:BLPTALK: Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices, should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate. Was the removed content contentious? Yes. Was it about a living person? Yes. Was it unsourced or poorly sourced? Yes. Was it not related to making content choices? Yes. Therefore, it should be removed, deleted, or oversighted. Seems like simple logic to me. The fact that it gets "noised about" doesn't make it okay to post onwiki. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 21:22, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

This is why we have a WP:UCS page. Throwing a fit over something like this is absurd and not at all helpful, especially since sourcing isn't applicable on pages like RFCUs. Nyttend (talk) 21:52, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Throwing a fit? I removed a denigrating comment about a living person from a talk page. Seems like perfect common sense to me. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 23:13, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:BLP states: "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Misplaced Pages page" (emphasis original) so it applies to an RFC/U just as much as it does an article. NJ did the right thing. NE Ent 23:39, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

"Was it not related to making content choices? Yes." Well, I wouldn't be too sure about that. The certifier who wrote his opinion about those two politicians was trying to convince us that those politicians needed to be put in a harsher light. The certifier was doing this in order to prove that the editor subject of the RfC/U was basically whitewashing articles of Democratic politicians. So it was reasonably related to a discussion about content choices, not a random rant. 5.12.68.204 (talk) 03:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Request for re-visitation of the topic ban of User:TheShadowCrow

After some discussion with TheShadowCrow on my talk page, I would like to request a partial lift on his topic ban related to creating BLP and Armenia(n) related articles. Despite an initial BATTLEGROUND start to that discussion, I believe that this user has come to a realization that no-one is "out to get them" or holding any grudges against them. I believe that at this point, something similar to the article creation restriction of User:Doncram by arbitration process, which states: "He may create new content pages in his user space, at Articles for Creation, in a sandbox area within a WikiProject's area, or in similar areas outside of article space. Such pages may only be moved to article space by other users after review." I believe that a one month or twenty-five new approved article threshold would be reasonable to demonstrate this user's intention to contribute to Misplaced Pages in a positive manner and awareness of identifying reliable sources for use on the biographies of living persons that have some verifiability. I think that this would make a reasonable prerequisite for an overall lifting of his topic ban in demonstrating good faith to properly edit existing articles on the topics. Thank you for your time and consideration. Technical 13 (talk) 18:42, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Isn't this the second or third request of this nature is a very short span of time? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:56, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

This is my first request on this users behalf after his second previous request on his own behalf requesting a full revocation of the ban of which he withdrew. This request, I would like to emphasize, is a request for a partial lift to facilitate reviewed new article creations offering him an opportunity To prove his claims of having learnt his lesson. Due to a technological restriction, I am unable to post links to the orginial discussion and previous requests for revocation for his ban, but would be happy to do so in the morning. Thank you again. Technical 13 (talk) 01:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe not an issue, but I notice the user has already made Armenia related edits to his sandbox: , . This would be technically in breach of: "edits related to Armenia or biographies of living persons, both broadly construed". Now I don't think that would merit any sort of sanction, but it might be premature and indicative of continued impatience, along with the multiple appeals, and postings to user talk pages such as User talk:Dennis Brown pushing for support in his appeal: , etc.

That said, I'd actually support a relaxation of the topic ban to allow him to work, initially, on a single article at a time in his sandbox - which would need to be reviewed by an editor with good BLP experience before being moved to mainspace. He'd need to find someone willing to do those reviews. If that works out, then the restrictions could be gradually relaxed. If it doesn't, then the original terms are easily reinstated. I don't like the AFC idea at all - AFC reviewers shouldn't be expected to do what could essentially amount to mentoring a topic-banned editor. Begoon  07:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

That's a good proposal. Support. NE Ent

That seems to be a reasonable counter-proposal. As a reviewer at AfC, I would be happy to ask around and see if there is anyone that has good BLP experience and see if they would be willing to take this user under their wing and mentor them. Technical 13 (talk) 13:27, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Update: I've made requests at Misplaced Pages talk:Adopt-a-user#Requesting an adopter that is... and Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#Requesting a reviewer that is... as promised. Technical 13 (talk) 13:38, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, quite frankly that reduces my support somewhat, because one of the big concerns here is the "pushy" nature of the appeals to date. Did you not notice the multiple uses of the word "premature" in this section? That should have been a hint. Editors worried that this was being pushed too hard and too fast will hardly be reassured to see you attempting to make arrangements for something that only one editor supports, and 2 admins have opposed, in an unfinished discussion. I know you're trying to help, but that doesn't, imo. Begoon  14:05, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how requesting a relaxation on a three month topic ban that was imposed seven weeks ago (one week shy of two months) which is over 50% of his sentence being carried out with a mentoring that would be set to last no less than a month (putting him one week shy of the original three months) is premature. Can someone explain that to me, please, as I really do not understand it. Thank you. Technical 13 (talk) 14:55, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll try. I tried to explain my comment when I made it. I came back and tried to clarify it a couple of times. It's a perception thing. My little girl knows that quite often the best way to get something from me when she's been forbidden it or abused it is to stop asking for it back every 5 minutes. She knows that constantly asking the same question in different ways is not going to work out for her. So she behaves for a while, smiles sweetly, and gets what she wants more quickly. Sometimes she forgets, and keeps holding onto the stick. That doesn't work out for her, ever. Not a perfect analogy, and sorry if it doesn't help. Begoon  15:07, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Are you kidding me? This was withdrawn as way too premature, not because you offered to have a chat. There cannot be relaxation of the TB this soon, seeing as he wholly misunderstood what the topic ban actually meant. Bringing this up now risks a topic ban against requesting relaxation of their topic ban - bad idea (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:31, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose as per my thinking at the last discussion from a few days ago - too soon. Wait for the full 3 months and then we will re-visit. GiantSnowman 12:37, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• It's hard to see how editing in a sandbox would be disruptive. I can see the reasoning behind wanting a three month break but the editor may lose interest altogether than then we've lost an editor (we have a shortage of those). NE Ent 12:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

  (Non-administrator comment) I've seen a lot of editors being pushed away unreasonably recently, and based on my readings of previous incidents that seems to be the way it has always been. This is sad that there are people that want to help and improve Misplaced Pages as a whole, but may be a little misguided in doing so and for that receive excessive blocks or bans from Misplaced Pages. Now, I realize that there are a lot of stupid bots and people that intend to do harm, but honestly, I rarely see any of those formally attempting to follow protocol and come to ANI or any other venue to request reconsideration. Most of the bots and those wishing to do harm to the project don't bother, they simply create a new spa or make their atrocious edits anonymously. Now, Misplaced Pages has many venues to help new editors, Help desk, Teahouse/Questions, Adopt a user program, AFC, and the list goes on, but there seems to be a broken link in getting the people that are having troubles and are here in ANI to these programs and help areas. Instead, there seems to be a let's block them for half a year and maybe they will be more mature and absorb all of our guidelines in the meantime even though they don't have the opportunity to practice any of the things they are suppose to be learning. I see lots of flaws in this, and hope that there can be a way to discuss this out and come up with a better "rehabilitation" program of sorts to get people hooked up with the right resources to help them make better edits on Misplaced Pages. Technical 13 (talk) 13:27, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

People are rehabilitated here all the time. Many admins started out by getting in trouble and then learning to fit in. It's a community, it's established, and at the end of the day it's a lot harder to change the monolith than change yourself. You need to be a part of it to effect change from within, and change from outside isn't going to happen, generally. I've been "mentoring" an editor who was indefinitely blocked, and saw no prospect at the time of his ban of ever getting out of the hole he was in. It's taken not weeks, or months, but much longer, and it's ongoing because it still benefits him, and me. Now he's a valuable member of the community, productive, and a lot of other editors respect him. I hardly need to do any "mentoring" with him at all now, but I'm still around for him if he wants to talk. Sometimes he "mentors" me now, on topics he knows better than I do. And I'm nothing - have a look at the mentoring work editors like User:Worm That Turned have done. Simply awesome. Sure, we could do the "mentoring" thing better as a community - but please don't think it doesn't already happen. A lot. Officially and unofficially. It's just not a "10 steps to heaven", tick all the boxes, model citizen in a fortnight program. But if you come up with one, I'm all ears. Begoon  15:23, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I apologize if I failed to make myself clear in the fact that I understand and respect that there are a few people that are rehabilitated with the way things currently work. My point was that if a person takes the time to discuss what they did, or what it was perceived that they did (I'll admit that I don't agree that there were initial violations in all of the cases I've seen on these noticeboards, but that may be my lack of understanding of all of the circumstances or whatnot and I've not the time or interest in dredging up all kinds of old "cases"), and someone feels it worthy to request a modification of the sanctions that are proposed on a user based on the discussion and all previous discussions that indicate others feel that the user is remorseful and truly has good faith intentions, than it isn't unreasonable to allow some modification of the sanctions from "you can't do" to "you can do, but supervised" and I think it benefits Misplaced Pages more in the long run to encourage participation in any of the programs I listed or implied that are designed to improve the editing skills of the editor and offer some kind of reward (in these cases, lightening, not removal, of the sanctions against them). Technical 13 (talk) 15:49, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

And as you saw from my support above, and Ent's, you're not alone in believing that we should work in that way. We also need to show respect for the community's time in dealing with these matters though, and, like it or lump it, serial appeals and constant pushiness rubs people up the wrong way. Always. I've used up my self imposed monthly ANI word count just in this discussion, though - so good luck. Begoon  16:38, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

As promised last night, the links to the previous discussions are: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive792#Continued editing of BLP articles without reliable sources by User:TheShadowCrow → Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive248#Please remove my ban. → Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive249#Ban_appeal

Thanks extension

Hey all. As described on this dedicated page, we've built a system to thank editors for individual edits. As I'm sure you're all aware, it's relatively trivial to deal with bad contributions (undo and rollback are your friend!) but we don't really have any way in MediaWiki to encourage editors who have made good edits. We can send out barnstars, sure, but barnstars are justifiably Kind Of A Big Deal - they're for really substantial contributions or a large number of small ones. There's nothing to thank people for individually helpful, gnome-ish edits except dropping a personal note - which is quite a lot of effort to do every time someone corrects a typo.

The Thanks extension solves for this; with it, you can send an editor a notification about the value of their edit with a couple of button-clicks. If you're not a fan, there will be preference options to turn off (respectively) receiving thanks, and seeing the interface elements of the extension at all. You can read more here :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 19:52, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• Could you drop this message off at WT:WER as well? And thank you, this is an interesting idea. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ / Join WER 19:56, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

  Thanks for the good idea! Doing so now :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• GiantSnowman 20:00, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks! --j⚛e decker 00:21, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
• I like the idea, but shouldn't this go on Village Pump rather than here? wctaiwan (talk) 10:42, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

  I posted it on the VPT ~15 seconds after I posted here :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:57, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

  Just received my first "Thank you". It was for protecting a page where there was sock puppetry going on. It almost reminds me of a baby barnstar, a nice ping that is unobtrusive. Sent my first one as well. I think I will like this. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ / Join WER 01:22, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Attribution for offensive text that was oversighted but screencapped by subject

Normally when an article is vandalized with horrible things about a BLP, it is oversighted and not mentioned again. In the case of Anita Sarkeesian, she took a screen capture of it (http://www.feministfrequency.com/2012/06/harassment-and-misogyny-via-wikipedia/), and allowed it to be published in Wired Magazine (http://www.wired.com/underwire/2012/06/anita-sarkeesian-feminist-games/). Since it is technically free and since it illustrates the topic (where the vandalism of Misplaced Pages itself is a topic of discussion), I've included it in the article (File:Anita Sarkeesian - Misplaced Pages Harassment.png). The problem is, how do I give attribution to edits that are currently oversighted revision-deleted but featured in that image? ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 22:51, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• Just for accuracy's sake, though it doesn't make much difference to the question at hand: the edits in question were revision deleted, not oversighted. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, thanks. I always conflate the two as they amount to the same thing for a non-admin. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 01:26, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
• Ugh. It appears that a BLP includes a section on how the article was vandalized, with a screenshot showing what a terrific job the vandals did. I can see that a case could made to justify this extreme violation of WP:DENY, but I find it worrying. The fact that the subject has attracted vile abuse may have some encyclopedic value, but I don't see why Misplaced Pages should cooperate in that endeavor. Perhaps the section should be heavily trimmed (no illustration), with just a mention of what two reliable secondary sources have written? Johnuniq (talk) 10:53, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Um, just remember that WP:DENY is an essay: we cannot "violate" it as if it were a project policy or guideline. Nyttend (talk) 12:17, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I would say Wired violated DENY when they published the screenshot. WP vandalism made the news in a reliable secondary source, we're reporting on that reporting. If we wanted to cork this and save face we should have done so before it saw re-publication. It's silly to not use the screenshot, as it is free and clearly explains the topic. We can't reasonably say that we're protecting the BLP by editing it, when she published the screenshot herself, continues to host it on her website, and provided it to a magazine for further publication. The edits were rev-deleted, so we can't be seen to be co-operating in the slander, just acting as our own tertiary source. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 19:10, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• It doesn't seem to me that any of the responses above deal with the actual question. As I see it, Wired actually broke the law by publishing that image, because it contains text from Misplaced Pages and they did not comply with Misplaced Pages's licensing terms (which require a specific kind of attribution). Since the image itself is technically a copyvio, there is no way of attributing it that will make it cease to be a copyvio. However this is a very unusual situation and it seems unlikely that any sort of legal action would be taken. Looie496 (talk) 16:04, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I think the case could be made that any image of a Misplaced Pages page that contains the title of that page is effectively providing the attribution. For example, this is an image of a WP page that is titled Anita Sarkeesian. One could reasonably assume that Wired readers would know that the attribution would be located at http://en.wikipedia.org/Anita_Sarkeesian. Regardless, this is covered under fair use, as they are discussing the vandalism specifically. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 19:10, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
    • I agree with Johnny. The "source" line for the image should read something like , modified from a screenshot of http://en.wikipedia.org/Anita_Sarkeesian. The little date addition to the bottom right corner isn't really enough to attract separate copyright in my opinion, and it's not particularly relevant to the situation, so it should stay but could easily be removed should someone challenge it by saying that we're infringing on her copyright. Nyttend (talk) 21:46, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
      • She can't claim a copyright violation, all WP text is share-alike, meaning that any derivative work is the same license. She pixelated the image and added the date, but her additions are automatically CC-BY-SA. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 22:01, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• Going back to the original question, the usernames (mostly IP addresses) were not hidden in the affected range. Hiding them would be a problem per WP:Revision deletion#Notes on use. The visible usernames – even disconnected from individual edits – satisfy Terms of Use 7. b. iii., "a list of all authors". Flatscan (talk) 04:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Anonymous209.6 edit waring on Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012

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

User:Anonymous209.6 is currently edit waring on Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012. His edits are going against consensus on the talk page, which he has been involved in. I would ask some aid in returning User:Anonymous209.6 to the talk page and gaining consensus on what are continuos changes.Casprings (talk) 03:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

King quote (actually the quote is accurate, it is the made-up-question that he wasn't asked that is the problem, as discussed on Talk) WP:BLP problem has been discussed at length, never addressed by Casprings. King used to have a section that violated WP:BLP and was tagged WP:POV, with justification. Casprings issued threats on UserTalk, filed frivolous WP:ANI that went away. Tag agreed to by consensus, consensus for REMOVAL. Casprings INSTEAD moved whole problem section to where it made no sense (support for Akin as a person, OK, rest, NO). Much discussed on Talk. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 04:25, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Relavent talk page sections are here and here. The changes made were an attempt to address the issues of all editors. There is certainly no consensus to remove the material.Casprings (talk) 04:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

WP 101. 1) There is no consensus. Your new and BLP-violating made-up question has only been edited by me and Casprings, and only referenced on Talk by me 2) For the same reason, it is logically impossible to call MY behavior edit warring, since the BLP violations are spelled out and justified, compared to the unjustified repetitive mindless re-insertion by Casprings 3) In cases of WP:BLP-violating content, immediate REMOVAL is required. Not only is prior consensus NOT required, but an actual consensus does not over-rule deletion of WP:BLP violating content. 4) Deletion of BLP-violating content is not even subject to 3rr. The one and only question (and one of the few ones on which admin input would be very helpful in advance) is whether manufacturing a question to make a non-controversial answer by a politician SEEM controversial is a violation of WP:BLP. If it is, insertion once is an editing behavior violation, and deletion however many times in whatever time frame is not.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 16:39, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

A number of editors have discussed the issues you brought up. If you continue to think there is a BLP violation, prehaps WP:BLPN might be the place to report it. However, lets handle the dispute on the talk page by gaining concensus over the issues.Casprings (talk) 18:09, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Repeating myself. Your new, but still false, manufactured question has not been commented on other than by me. The major WP:BLP violations issues must be addressed on Talk by YOU, before re-insertion, and certainly before filing an ANI. To admins; to weigh in on a BLP question, an admin would have to weigh in on the BLP issues, that is just logic. The WP:BLP issues are here because Casprings brought them here. For Casprings to now say that Casprings wants to file new noticeboard processes to avoid a discussion on ANI of the WP:BLP issues Casprings themselves brought to WP:ANI is utterly nonsensical.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 19:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Could you provide a link to this discussion that only you and I took part in. I do not recall that from the talk page.Casprings (talk) 19:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Separate (but valid) WP:BLP not the original subject

This sentence, which Casprings continues to push, ..he stated that pregnancy from rape was "something God intended". is contentious. Taking a partial quote anytime is problematic, but to take the persons word's out of context at the same time is a BLP violation. This article has several problems, and this is simply a good example of the general problems with this article. And to think that Casprings thinks that this is deserving of FA status is even more problematic. Arzel (talk) 05:31, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• This is a reference to the title of one of the sections. This has already been discussed some time ago, here. This topic is not the subject of the current dispute.Casprings (talk) 11:23, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I am talking specifically about the sentence not your misuse of selective quoting in the section heading. Why do you feel the need to push a selective quote when the full quote is available? Arzel (talk) 14:08, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Strange as it may seem, here, Casprings has a point. The selective quoting of Mourdock is among the many WP:BLP issues with THAT section, and while I understand that the huge number of individual WP:BLP that basically comprise the article make it difficult to keep straight WHICH WP:BLP issue we are talking about, (combined with Caspring's tendentious habit of filing dozens of noticeboard or admin processes INSTEAD of keeping discussions within the subject on Talk page) in this case the subject is a different WP:BLP issue, namely the fabrication of a question to go with an actual answer King said. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 14:49, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Anonymous, looking at your edit history, YOU surely have a point. And you should achieve a consensus for a new wording on the talk page instead of edit warring against consensus. This is how WP works. Cavarrone 16:25, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

And about this subsection, these concers were already raised by Arzel in more proper places more than once and everytime wholly dismissed... I don't see how they are relevant here. Cavarrone 16:40, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

This particular issue has not been addressed. The taking out of context of that quote has not been addressed, only the partial quoting of the section heading was discussed. Arzel (talk) 17:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Cavarrone; thank you for the supportive comment on the WP:BLP issues that are the original issue. Since from the time-stamp, it seems we cross-edited, I had already left a polite note on Arzel's Talk page that the Mourdock section BLP violations were not in fact the subject of this ANI (and are thus not appropriate here), and he both graciously agreed, and also graciously agreed that they should be refactored to make this discussion separate from the actual topic. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 17:26, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

The current quote is the following:

I know there are some who disagree and I respect their point of view but I believe that life begins at conception. The only exception I have to have an abortion is in that case of the life of the mother. I just struggled with it myself for a long time but I came to realize: Life is that gift from God that I think even if life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.

To me, that provides enough context. However, if you feel it doesn't, I would be happy to discuse it. I do not think that stating that I am "taking out of context" the quote is fair. However, I would be more than willing to discuss adding more to it.Casprings (talk) 18:06, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

What part of "this is not the subject of the ANI, and thus not appropriate to continue on an ANI" did you not understand?--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 19:02, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

It was brought up by user:Arzel as a violation of WP:BLP. As such, it is open to being adressed, at least in a limited manner. Again, I would be more then happy to discuss it further to understand what user:Arzel thinks should be added to that quote.Casprings (talk) 19:10, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Legal threat

Can an IP be blocked for a legal threat? Not that I think it's a very serious one, and probably the author of the deleted page Talk:Korosh Kushzad anyway, but I'm just curious, never having come across one before. Peridon (talk) 11:14, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Of course they can - just for shorter times (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:29, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

What sort of length? I've never had much to do with blocking IPs. Peridon (talk) 14:38, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, does it look like the same IP has been editing for awhile - does it appear dynamic? If it looks fixed, go for 2 months ... if it looks dynamic, go for a week ... (✉→BWilkins←✎) 19:11, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Ta. Peridon (talk) 19:18, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Personal attacks by User:Thenightchicagodied needing immediate attention

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

Hello administrators! I'm not entirely sure which noticeboard this belongs on, but felt it was something that needed to be addressed and dealt with. I issued this warning on this user's talk page for the reversion I did of his edit to the talk page of TheOriginalSoni. I then decided to check out the history of Thenightchicagodied's talk page and found this warning from TOS that seems to be what had prompted the post on TOS's talk page. Since I have started writing this report, Thenightchicagodied has reverted my warning (apparently accusing me of being an SPA of TOS), left this on TOS's talk page, also been warned by DVdm, removed that warning, and is being extremely vulgar and BATTLEGROUND style WP:PA in their edit summaries... I'm sure they are causing more disruption, but I'm choosing to submit at this point and let an admin deal with it. Technical 13 (talk) 14:21, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) As a matter of policy, it's worth noting that you are allowed to remove warnings from your own talkpage. No comment on the other stuff; I'll leave that for some admin to sort out. — PinkAmpers& 14:29, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• Final warning issued here for personal attacks and uncivil behaviour. GiantSnowman 14:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• Warning removed by user. GiantSnowman 14:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• User Thenightchicagodied (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) already had 4 warnings for personal attacks. Next revert (for any reason) would automatically get them reported at WP:AIV and probably promptly get them indefinitely blocked. A matter of time, so to speak. - DVdm (talk) 14:33, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• Reverting what, exactly? GiantSnowman 15:01, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• Please have a look at TheOriginalSoni's attack on myself in the Suburban Express talk page. Without any evidence, she accuses me of IP posts and engages in a personal attack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thenightchicagodied (talk • contribs) 14:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• Do you have a diff please? GiantSnowman 15:01, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Are you referring to this edit restoring a request for you to quit socking or this edit doing the same? Technical 13 (talk) 15:11, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• DVdm (talk · contribs) and Technical 13 (talk · contribs), why are you removing Thenightchicagodied's posts from TheOriginalSoni (talk · contribs)? And why are you doing so with misleading (or even, some could say, false) edit summaries? 1, 2, 3, 4. GiantSnowman 14:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Since when is titling a section "Hey Dickhead" and using the edit summaries of "removed edit by theoriginalsoni which accuses me of edits which i did not do. fuck off you little prick." and "fuck off you little prick, your tech support job needs you." not considered a personal attack especially when coming from an account that has been Blocked for sockpuppetry ? Technical 13 (talk) 15:11, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
    • You couldn't change the heading? The actual message was OK. And what about the other three diffs? GiantSnowman 15:17, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Our edits here actually overlapped...

I assure you that I personally am not "out to get you". Although my first revision was completely accurate removing your personal attack against TOS, I will admit that my second one may have been questionable whereas my adrenalin was pumping from your apparent personal attack against me by implying that I'm an SPA of TOS in your edit summary reverting my reversion of your attack telling TOS to leave you along (for the record, I'm in the USA and TOS is in Asia iirc). I looked it over very quickly on the second reversion and did not notice you changed the context of the section header to something a little more appropriate (albeit pushing the threshold with tone in my opinion). I apologize for this. Considering your recent blocks and apparent newness on Misplaced Pages, may I suggest looking into the Adopt-a-user program and finding yourself an adopter? You may also want to read up on WP:CALM and feel free to ask questions at the Teahouse (I'll send you an invite just below) in a civil manner. Technical 13 (talk) 15:25, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• I did send the invite in the below section on the user's talk page, and the last two reversions are not mine to answer for, I stopped and came here after the second one. Technical 13 (talk) 15:35, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)

Hi GiantSnowman,

1. : "Hey Dickhead" = PA
2. : reposting comment that I understood was removed by user TheOriginalSoni before, hence harrassment, hence PA
3. : idem
4. : idem

I did a search for the instance where TheOriginalSoni originally removed the message from their talk page. I could not find it. Only user Technic 13 seems to have done so ( and ). So technically this probably wasn't harrassment (or PA) after all. If TheOriginalSoni did not feel harrassed by Thenightchicagodied's addition of the comment, then I was carried away by their original edit summaries (, , ) and Technic 13's other reverts, and thus mistaken, for which my apologies. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 15:38, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I go offline for 12 hours and this is what greets me when I come back. Woah. The user under question has been showing disruptive symptoms throughout their activity here, and I have been unsuccesfully trying to reason with them. Had I been online at the time, I would have made the first revert too, but probably would have let the others stay, even though I would still consider them PA and harassment. Thank you T13 and DVdm for those reverts, and I find all of them correct. I hope we do not see more of him again, although we probably might. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 02:57, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Anyang Halla

This article needs to jump onto a few watch lists. I've brought this up with administrators in the past, but I do not regularly edit any more or generally care too. It may be a BLP issue, as it is a fairly on-going attack against a living person. Background:

Alex Kim was an import player for Anyang Halla, before his departure there were rumours of some kind of incident between him and the team's english interpreter/scout. In fact the interpreter is indef blocked from Misplaced Pages for his continually inserting press releases/promotional material onto the AH article and sometimes the Asia League article. The interpreter was fired/let go from the team before Alex left. Since that time, there have been some attacks on his article page, as well as a repeated effort to remove his name from the list of past import players on the team. Racist terms have been inserted on his page like this: , and here . You can see his name being removed here and . Both pages should hit some people's watch pages, and I expect CU would probably not turn up anything on those IPs, but 99.9999999% I would say that it is the same guy doing this, as I can't imagine anyone else who would specifically target him like that.--114.205.84.126 (talk) 15:35, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Personal attack and ownership of User:Tabarez

User:Tabarez was warned to stop edit warring in this article here. Also he has a long history of copy right violation with multiple warnings in his user page. (He blanked it). He is a member of campaign of one of the candidates of the upcoming presidential , and he want to use colors for his candidate without providing a source. He restarted his edit war and after my warning he attacked me in Persian (Here is a translation of what he said: "This section doesn't need references. After a week of useless discussion with you, I finally understand how stupid you are". I think that he believes that this article belongs to him and he wants to promote his candidate with English Misplaced Pages.Farhikht (talk) 08:16, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Also I made a request on COI noticeboard here some days ago and I'm still waiting the answer of admins.Farhikht (talk) 08:33, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

In all of our conversations, I conservated practices and I don't insult to him anymore. I think he knows the article is belong to him not me! As he reverted edits of other users. As I know and I asks from other users, color don't need sources and in inbox sources did not shows. All articles about election have color if it's not officially announced. I'm a member of Ghalibaf's campaign but I don't add any partial note to the articles as you can see in my history.Tabarez (talk) 08:27, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

So if I roll in and set that candidate's color to some flavor of hot pink, that would be ok? Or would it not be better to have the correct, official color, and to have a source that we can point to if someone comes in to change it? We don't ask for sources just to be douchebags - having sources protects the information once it's there by confirming it. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 12:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I see that there is discussion about the sources on the talk page... surely for something as simple as a color, primary sources would work? I imagine we have bigger fish to fry, so to speak. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 12:43, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Request Merge

Hello all, I would like to request help concerning the merging of the following articles: Panoramic photography and Digital panoramic function. The proposal was made in 2011 but still nothing has been decided. I can help merging the content. Thank you very much! Zalunardo8 (talk) 10:21, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I redirected Digital panoramic function to Panoramic photography as I didn't see anything useful to merge. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 20:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much Nathan Johnson! Cheers, Zalunardo8 (talk) 09:24, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Ecolon

This article was deleted on 3 December 2012 by the admin JamesBWatson who cited as reason for the deletion (G5: Creation by a banned or blocked user (Androstachys) in violation of ban or block). Previous nominations of other articles created by user Androstachys were dismissed since the articles were found to be useful, and that being banned or blocked did not automatically mean that work prior to the ban was without merit. Could this article be restored and could the wording of G5 be reviewed? Thank you Paul venter (talk) 12:36, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Where is your attempt to discuss this matter with JamesBWatson (talk · contribs) prior to bringing this to AN? You also failed to notify him about this discussion despite very clear instructions to do so. As for the matter at hand, I fully support any Admin who deletes an article that was created by a blocked/banned user in violation of their block/ban under G5, regardless of any 'merit' the article may have. WP:DENY. GiantSnowman 12:45, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

• Echoing GS above, where's the discussion with the deleting admin? JBW is an admin who's generally open to reasonable discussion, and will make decisions based on the good of the project (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:55, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
• Ditto about the discussion with JBW first bit. That said, this is kind of an interesting case, and I'm not sure whether G5 strictly applies. The account that created the article wasn't blocked until a year after they created it. It was blocked as a sock of (this very) Paul venter, whose last block was three years before the article was created, much less deleted as G5. Nor can I find any indication that Paul was ever actually banned. So, the article was created by a sockpuppet, yes, but it was not created in violation of a ban or block (as years separate the creation of the page from any block that might be relevant, and there is no ban at all). So, technically speaking, Paul is correct that this was not eligibile for G5. Should it have been, per the spirit of the rule? That's a different question (one to which I still think the answer is "no", if only because CSD criteria are meant to be strictly interpreted. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:28, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

• On further investigation, I presume JBW used G5 because the block rationale for Androstachys is mis-leading; it states "new account of community-banned long-term disruptive editor Paul venter / Rotational / etc." - therefore one can see why JBW used G5 in good faith. GiantSnowman 13:33, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oh, to be sure; I never doubted that JBW was acting in good faith, and didn't mean to imply that he wasn't. I wouldn't pin any sort of blame on him. The fact that the deletion was technically improper remains, though. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:36, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
    • True; I would say we need to restore the article and then consider our options i.e. AFD. GiantSnowman 13:40, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

• Restored. Article needs work if it's going to stay, though, even as a stub; it's not sourced, and currently reads a little bit like a "why Ecolon is better than what's on the market today" puff piece rather than an encyclopedic stub. AfD would be not unreasonable in its current state. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:45, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

• I've stubbed it and tagged for improvement. GiantSnowman 13:49, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

• An edit conflict prevented me from posting a comment which I wrote without seeing that Writ Keeper had restored the article. Most of what I wrote is now redundant, but I will post an excerpt from it: :The arguments put forward by Paul venter do not constitute reasons for restoring the article, but there are other reasons for doing so. Androstachys was blocked by Hesperian, with a log entry that said "Long term abuse: new account of community-banned long-term disruptive editor Paul venter / Rotational / etc". I took Hesperian's word for it that Paul venter was community-banned, but searching now I can find no evidence of that. I will ask Hesperian to comment, in case he/she knows of something relevant that is not evident to the rest of us. For what it is worth, if Paul venter (alias Androstachys) had simply posted a request on my talk page, saying that he was not banned, I would have restored the article well over an hour ago. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

• Hopefully this will be a helpful timeline:
  • Paul venter (talk · contribs) was created on 18 February 2006.
  • Paul venter was blocked on 5 July 2007 for 24 hours (copyright violations). The account did not resume editing after the block expired until years later.
  • Raasgat (talk · contribs), a sockpuppet, appeared on 5 July 2007 and then stopped editing in mid-September 2007. The account was abandoned.
  • Roxithro (talk · contribs), another sockpuppet, was created on 15 July 2007 right after Raasgat. Both Raasgat and Roxithro were used at the same time. Both were abandoned around 14 September 2007.
  • Rotational (talk · contribs), another sockpuppet, was created on 14 September 2007 after he stopped editing under Raasgat and Roxithro.
  • There was a sockpuppet report on 11 November 2007 that resulted in indef blocks to Roxithro, Raasgat, and Rotational. Paul venter received a 72-hour block as the sock master. Shortly thereafter the block on Rotational was lifted by Firsfron because Paul venter suggested he'd rather edit under that name instead if I recall correctly (here's the conversation). Firsfron specifically says, "If you are the same person as these other accounts, I can have the other accounts blocked and you can use solely this account." When unblocking Rotational, however, the Paul venter account remained unblocked.
  • Rotational continued to edit and eventually was indef-blocked after this AN/I thread: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive582#Rotational. (1 December 2009)
  • Androstachys (talk · contribs) was created shortly thereafter on 10 December 2009. He edited under that until Hesperian blocked on 10 August 2011.
  • The Paul venter account begins editing again on 8 November 2011 to present. With the exception of a few edits in 2008, the last edit made from that account before then was before the first sockpuppet was created on 5 July 2007. After the Rotational account was indef blocked, Paul moved back to his open account that Firsfron should have blocked as a result of unblocking Rotational. Isn't that block avoidance? Hopping back into your original account that just happens to be available to avoid an indef block...
• I hope that's useful. It is true that Rotational was not community banned but indef blocked in the AN/I discussion. It had been about 2 years from the discussion of Rotational's indef block to Hesperian's block of Androstachys where he described it as a community ban, so I'd forgive him the mistaken block log entry. Cheers, Rkitko 19:40, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I believe my block to be correct as written: that is, I believe that Paul was community-banned under one of his incarnations at some point. But I'm not interested in spending any number of hours trawling the archives in order to justify a two-year-old block, as I do not support the deletion of Paul's contributions on these grounds anyhow. The issues with Paul were always around his interactions with others, not the quality of his content; and for all I know those issues are a thing of the past now. Hesperian

If anyone wants to explore further, some of the relevant links are

• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive212#Jonty Rhodes article and edits by Paul Venter
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive213#User:Paul venter
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive220#User:Paul venter
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive223#User:Paul venter and User:Berks105 engaged in some sort of edit war
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive224#User:Paul venter levying accusations following recent block
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive295#User:Raasgat - possible sockpuppet of User:Paul venter
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive381#Ownership and accusations of wikistalking
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive486#User:Rotational conflict
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive530#User:Rotational
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive537#Rotational
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive539#Rotational
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive545#Rotational.2C again
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive577#User:Rotational volating his editing restriction.
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive788#Paul venter - issue with reliable sources

Hesperian 02:04, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Twinkle is now updated again

After the fuckup with bits.wikimedia.org before due to memory issues in jsmin+.php, I've now splitted up twinkle in 23 separate files . The new MW:AN3 reporting thing in the arv module is now functional, and while it might need some more love, it works and hopefully results in either better reports or more reports :) _→AzaToth 16:14, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Is "splitted" a word? :) Rockfang (talk) 10:27, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

User:N-HH automatically assuming bad faith on my part, providing combative rather than constructive criticism

Proposal to move on

At Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Pjc747 a different kind of case came up. Editor was blocked for VOA a while back, which he claims was a compromised account. Edits before that were fine. Original account was User:Pjc747 and it was blocked 3 December 2010. He started a new account User:Spartan7W the next month in January 2011 and spot checking his edits, I didn't see anything problematic. The only reason he was discovered is he used the old name in his current signature, so he wasn't trying to hide anything, he just wasn't aware of the policy, which is plausible. Technically, it is socking now, meaning he should log in to the old account, request unblock, or wait 6 months for a WP:STANDARDOFFER but he would rather use this established account. Forcing standard process seems overly bureaucratic in this one particular case. A unilateral decision by me seems inappropriate in this circumstance so I'm bringing it here for the community to decide. This is one of those rare cases where I think Misplaced Pages is better served if we ignore the rules as a community.

I propose we move on, let him edit unrestricted, and build an encyclopedia.

• Support as proposing party. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ / Join WER 02:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support - "Rules" or bureaucracy should never be allowed to prevent improvements to the project. He's currently editing constructively, and should be allowed to continue doing so. I am much more convinced of an editor's "rehabilitation" by months of constructive editing than I am by six months of nothing followed by a standard offer. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 02:54, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
• Of course NE Ent 02:56, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support per proposer. Begoon  03:07, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Accounts sometimes are genuinely compromised, and starting a clean account seems a reasonable solution. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:30, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support Seems like a good idea, IRWolfie- (talk) 08:53, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support per Salvidrim. Peridon (talk) 09:33, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support per Dennis Brown. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:45, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support Sensible applicationg of IAR. Blackmane (talk) 10:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:GAME violations at Ref Desks using multiple identities from multiple IP addresses

Relevent discussions before I get into details:

• Misplaced Pages talk:Reference desk#Community ban of Wickwack AKA Ratbone
• Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/121.215.10.7

At the reference desks, there has been what appears to be recently uncovered someone who is, for all intents and purposes, violating the spirit of WP:SOCK by using multiple personal identifiers including the following:

• Wickwack
• Ratbone
• Keit
• Floda

None of these is a registered account, but they all edit from the same Australian service provider (Telstra) with a highly dynamic IP address, and they always sign their posts using one of those monikers, though they have never formally registered an account, they have clearly represented themselves as four distinct personalities. There is some compelling evidence, however, based on the style and overlap of editing, the fact that they all edit from the same geographic area, all sign their posts in the same manner (though they use different names, the way they sign their name to their IP posts is the same), and that they frequently show up to support the others when a conflict arises is quite disturbing. There are even instances where more than one of the "personalities" will edit in quick succession from the exact same IP address. Not everyone in the above discussions is fully convinced of the connection, but a decent case based on diffs and other evidence has been built by User:TenOfAllTrades and User:Modocc. I'd rather not copy the entirety of their evidence here, as that would take this post into WP:TLDR territory (If I'm not there already), but I'd like to ask that as many people as possible review that evidence, and then vote on the following ban proposal. If you either a) disagree that the evidence is compelling enough or b) agree that the evidence is clear, but still do not support the ban proposed below, please feel free to oppose it. If, however, you think this type of WP:GAME behavior is disruptive and dishonest and should be stopped, please consider supporting it. --Jayron32 04:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Addendum: I know I am supposed to notify the user in question, but they edit from a very dynamic range of IP addresses, changing randomly. I have no idea what the most recent IP address they have used is, but they do actively monitor WT:RD and other parts of the reference desk, so I have left a notice there hoping they will see it. Any other suggestions as to how to meet the notification requirements are much obliged, I have every desire to hear this person's side of the story, but I am at a loss as to how to more efficiently notify them than I have already done, so any help in this department would be appreciated. --Jayron32 04:18, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I put a notice here: http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:124.178.49.220 --Modocc (talk) 04:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban of IP editor known as Wickwack and other aliases

The user known by the aliases Wickwack, Ratbone, Keit, Floda, who edits from a dynamic IP address, is indefinitely banned from contributing to discussions at Misplaced Pages:Reference desk and Misplaced Pages talk:Reference desk and all subpages thereof. They are banned regardless of whichever alias they use, or even if they stop using aliases altogether, whether it be one of the above, or another, enforceable by reverting their contributions to the above discussion pages.

• Support as nom. --Jayron32 04:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support due to manipulative use of "alias". -- Scray (talk) 04:35, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support Having been gamed, I'm inclined to delve into the archives to see what other misconduct might have occurred that might warrant a full site ban. -Modocc (talk) 05:38, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support Unless the editor is willing to register an account and provide some rationale/alternative for their behaviour.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 06:37, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support I'm generally a supporter of a lot of things WickWack says, but Jayron has convinced me that his pretty obvious messing around with aliases is a big breach of at least the spirit of what we're on about here. He says some very constructive stuff on the Ref Desks, and he has a ready solution if he wants to stay with us. Register. HiLo48 (talk) 08:18, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
• Weak Support But without enforcement until after he has posted on WT:RD or W:RD, and had a chance to have his say (if he doesn't, then the lack of a ban makes no difference, but he should have the chance to comment to stop it coming into effect, rather than to remove it). MChesterMC (talk) 08:48, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

What is wrong with WP:FRS?

Every time I try to edit the feedback request service page, it goes through, but I always get this kind of error:

Request: POST http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Feedback_request_service&action=submit, from 10.64.0.123 via cp1007.eqiad.wmnet (squid/2.7.STABLE9) to 10.2.2.1 (10.2.2.1) Error: ERR_READ_TIMEOUT, errno at Fri, 31 May 2013 08:30:03 GMT

If anyone could help, that would be great. Thanks! -- Numbermaniac _(C) 08:38, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Naomi Thompson

co-wrote the UK #62 hit The Sun Machine and was a member of Afrodiziak. I've already asked Fang Aili and Coren to restore, but when I checked Fang had edited once in the past year and Coren hadn't edited this side of the month - could someone else restore it to User:Launchballer/Naomi Thompson?--Launchballer 08:51, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Done. There's not a lot in it about Thompson, though. One mention of her name and that's it. Peridon (talk) 09:31, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Whoever wrote that clearly did not have English as their first language.--Launchballer 09:35, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Seems the article is deleted. Andrew Stiff (talk) 09:40, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

It's currently in my userspace undergoing repair.--Launchballer 10:29, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Administrative backlog