Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:34, 16 January 2014

• 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 38 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 105 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 84 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 75 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 74 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 26 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 32 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 32 days ago on 20 December 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 14 days ago on 6 January 2025) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:35, 15 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)

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 248 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 118 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 84 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:Israel–Hamas war#Survey

(Initiated 75 days ago on 7 November 2024) Looking for uninvolved close in CTOP please, only a few !votes in past month. I realise this doesn't require closing, but it is preferred in such case due to controversial nature of topic. CNC (talk) 10:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

•  Note: I'm happy to perform the merge if required, as have summarised other sections of this article already with consensus. I realise it's usually expected to perform splits or merges when closing discussions, but in this case it wouldn't be needed. CNC (talk) 20:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 24 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 14 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 10 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)

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

Laura Hale topic ban

I would like to propose a topic ban for User:LauraHale from using any Spanish-language sources, since these are her most frequently used sources, but she doesn't understand them and frequently introduces completely incorrect "facts" into articles. This is always a problem, but certainly from someone with a semi-official function wrt Spanish articles.

From her user page: "I have been a Wikimedian in Residence for the Spanish Paralympic Committee since late June 2013."

She recently came back to my attention in the discussion Misplaced Pages talk:Did you know/Archive 99#Laura Hale revisited from early December 2013, where she had an article lined up for the main page claiming that a Spanish Paralympian had competed at the 1996 Paralympics, which was completely false. Her defense there was:

"I admit that I made a mistake because of a bad Google translation. I have tried to be as diligent as possible to insure I make very few mistakes of this kind. Problems of potentially misunderstanding a source is why we have a review process though, to try to correct any unintentional insertions of non-factual information. It's also why DYK requires articles to be fully sourced."

Yesterday, she moved Rafael Botello Jimenez to the main namespace, but again, this article contains blatant misinformation which seems to be due to poorly (machine-)translated Spanish sources. In this case, the article claims that "In 2010, he competed in the New York City Marathon, finishing in a time of 1:47.39, making him the first Spanish wheelchair competitor to finish the race." This is rather awkwardly phrased, but stringly gives the impression that he was the first Spanish wheelchaor competitor ever to finish the NY marathon, which is clearly wrong, considering that e.g. in 2007 another Spanish competitor finished ahead of him. The article also claims that "He was the first Spanish wheelchair competitor to go sub 1:15 on in the marathon and sub 10:15 in the 5,000 meters.", but the source makes it clear that he went sub 1 hour 25 (not 15) minutes on the marathon, and it would be nice if different notation was used for hour:minutes and minutes:seconds, not as it is done here.

Another example, also from yesterday: Aitor Oroza Flores: the article claims that he "works as a mechanic, cook and lecturer.", which seems rather intriguing. In reality, his hobbies are "Aficiones: Lectura, mecánica y cocina.", so he doesn't work as a lecturer but likes reading...

We shouldn't let an editor who has so much trouble understanding even the most basic Spanish texts work on BLPs of Spanish people, and even less so as a "Wikimedian in Residence" for such topics. Considering that the problems continue after even the rather blatant incident from last month, and seem to be widespread and serious (the Aitor Oroza Flores example above is a good illustration of this), protecting her, ourselves, and the people involved from further problems and a more massive cleanup operation than we probably already need to undertake, needs to be our priority. A topic ban seems to be the most efficient way to achieve this. Fram (talk) 17:17, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

You'd need more evidence of consistent multiple errors in her articles than that Fram.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:26, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, Dr Blofeld, it seems reasonable to me that once we know someone doesn't adequately speak the language of the sources they're using, and therefore has been introducing errors into articles based on poor translation, we should ask them to stop trying to use sources in that language. Once or twice is enough for that.

However, what's not entirely clear to me from Fram's summary is whether someone has tried to have a conversation with Laura about this. I don't see one on her talk page, at least. Fram, have you or anyone else approached Laura and said, "Hey, it looks like your Spanish isn't really good enough to be doing this sort of sourcing; could you please avoid using Spanish-language sources"? Has she refused to do so? Or have we jumped right from "I recognize a problem in someone else" to "proposing topic ban" without attempting "asking them to stop"? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:38, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I believe such conversation is contained in the first reference provided by Fram. (Actually, I see a consensus for DYK topic ban there, does someone know why the topic ban was not implemented?)--Ymblanter (talk) 17:45, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

The DYK talk thread appears to be about topic-banning Laura from DYK. It mentions the Spanish issues, but only in the context of "...and here's why she shouldn't be allowed to submit DYKs," and no one in that thread is really addressing whether Laura should stop using Spanish sources. I guess my point is that no one has presented Laura with "Your Spanish skills aren't up to the job, we need you to stop using Spanish sources for now, in any article," and it seems weird to escalate to a topic ban without seeing if she'll just, you know, stop. That said, however, I do think Laura needs to stop attempting to use Spanish sources, based on what I'm seeing. I'm just wondering whether a topic ban is necessary to have that happen (and maybe it is, but I'd like to see this involve a conversation with Laura about this particular issue, so we can determine that). Hopefully now that this thread is here, she'll be willing to weigh in and engage with the community's concerns. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:27, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

(ec)I have not contacted her on her talk page, no. I would think that someone who has her position, and has a problem like the one from the DYK discussion from last month, would recognise that she needs to take a lot more care with the sources she uses. Considering that with her position as Wikimedian in residence and her topics, she basically can't agree to not using Spanish sources, but seeing that on the other hand she doesn't seem capable to do so with sufficient accuracy at all, I thought that having an outside, binding discussion would be more logical and fruitful. Anyway, other articles and DYKs seem to have sufficient problems as well, looking at rejected recent DYKS like Template:Did you know nominations/María Carmen Rubio and Template:Did you know nominations/David Mouriz Dopico. Fram (talk) 18:04, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I echo what User:Fluffernutter said. If someone (doesn't matter if it's Jimbo or an IP editor) heavily relies on Google Translate or other online translation service to translate an entire sentence, they probably don't have a clue in that language to judge whether the translated sentence is factually correct. Now back to Laura. Fram provided evidence of three articles that contained wrong information as a result of improper translation. Others above have brought the previous DYK topic ban attempt into the discussion. From a chronological perspective, we see that only the first article made its way to DYK and the two subsequent articles did not. So I don't think we should tie this with the DYK topic ban. However, since this topic ban proposal is about "using any Spanish-language sources", I see the merit in it. But if it's enacted, how can we enforce it? Laura could have used other languages (e.g. Italian, Portuguese) to circumvent this topic ban and we will be back here very shortly. OhanaUnited 20:16, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

My understanding is that she only speaks English, so topic-ban for using any machine translations seems in principle sensible to me.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:34, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• Ban? When the obvious solution is to run it by a competent translator? We are still tying to help each other out, I think. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:54, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• " I would think that someone who has her position..." Wait, what has her employment got to do with this? If she wasn't a Wikimedian in Residence, would you still be making this proposal? If so, why is it relevant? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:02, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
  • This is not someone making a one-off or limited series of articles based on Spanish sources, this is someone who does this in a semi-offocial position on a serial basis and can be expected to continue doing these articles. Her position is important background, also indicating that she is not some newbie. Fram (talk) 21:50, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Apart from the original mistake (which has been discussed before), you've given three examples here:

1. The first is mildly badly written English ("In 2010 ... making him the first Spanish wheelchair competitor to finish the race" implies the 2010 race, not every year's race.) It's not a translation problem; the problem is merely the slightly ambiguous English.
2. The second looks just as likely, in fact far more likely, to be a typo rather than anything to do with Google translate. (Does Google translate turn "25" into "15"?) The 1 and 2 keys are next to each other on most keyboards.
3. The third is a bit more uncertain, but could just as well be a careless hurried manual translation (see false friend) rather than a Google translate problem.

Your evidence doesn't prove your thesis, in fact it doesn't even come close. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:11, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• • The topic ban is not based on her using machine translations, human translations or baboon translations, the tpic ban is because she consistently uses bad translations. I really don't care where she get these, the "Google translation" comes from her own admission, not from some research on what produced these results. Fram (talk) 21:50, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• I really do think that this should have been discussed with Laura before it was brought here, As a Wikimedian in Residence in Australia she did some excellent work. She is now living in Spain, and presumably learning Spanish. A quiet talk with her would probably result in getting a Spanish friend to check her translations. All this drama could have been avoided. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:34, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
  • She had a completely incorrect DYK due to a bad translation, which was discussed with her at WT:DYK, but which didn't change anything. Yes, all this drama could have been avoided if she had made some effort instead of continuing with more of the same... Fram (talk) 21:50, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
  • This is a very ill judged discussion. Lets just imagine that these mistakes had come from poorly misunderstood sources in English. They might be misunderstood facts, poorly written English or because it is unusual English. Would we ban that editor from using English sources? We are constantly having to make value judgements about sources and facts and we make mistakes. I'm pleased to see that someone spotted an error. They should fix it and move on. If there is a problem then it doesnt require us to vote on someones first guess at a solution to the problem. Other solutions exist ... and actually the problem is not going to cause the sky to fall. Victuallers (talk) 22:06, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Yes, what on earth is this doing on an Administrator noticeboard. Fram should have discussed this on Laura's user page. That would be much closer to our standard approaches with problematic user behaviour. As for Laura's English, no it's not perfect (nor is mine), but that's the easiest thing in the world for any of us to fix. And why a topic ban? She obviously has good knowledge of the area involved, and access to good sources. The aim here should be to simply fix the translation problem. HiLo48 (talk) 22:10, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
      • And how would you suggest we do this? How do you fix a translation problem? Victuallers as well says "other solutions exist", but offers none. This is not about making "value judgments", when you claim that someone works as a lecturer because you can't understand Spanish and the source says that someone has reading as a hobby, then you just aren't fit to use Spanish sources (and no, the Spanish source was not written poorly or in unusual Spanish; a sports journalist writing solely about Spanish artists should know the word "aficionado", and here the word was "Aficiones", which is very basic Spanish anyay) and when someone has had serious problems in that regard recently, but continues to create dozens of articles based on nothing but Spanish and Catalan sources, then something needs to be done. Fram (talk) 05:46, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
        • Discuss it with her? Offer to help? HiLo48 (talk) 06:16, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
          • Indeed. Serious lack of WP:AGF from the originators of this AN thread, from what I'm seeing. Orderinchaos 08:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
        • It just seems hard to believe we are bereft of knowledge of Spanish, and no one will help vet before publication here when she has a problem on BLP's. For example, I have asked knowledgeable wikipedians to vet non-English sources, and they seem to be quite helpful people. Doesn't your proposal seem more than a little cruel for someone working in Spain?-- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:48, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
          • • • Cruel? It's her choice to continue producing clearly deficient articles on BLPs by using completely incorrect translations (no matter how they are produced), even after the result of such actions have been pointed out. In the above linked DYK discussion from one month ago, she stated "My Spanish is good enough that I can pick up most facts, and know where there are issues. I also hangout in #wikimedia-es and #wikinews-es a lot asking for clarification on Spanish I do not understand. I also have access to native speakers that assist me when I ask." If all these assurances she gave are not sufficient, then what more can we ask? She is producing English language articles for the Spanish Paralympic Committee, who probably trust her work blindly (considering that she is the Wikimedian in Residence). Isn't it cruel towards the Committee to let her continue to produce such basic errors? We know there are problems, her assurances from a month ago seem to be worthless, so the next step is to force a change. Fram (talk) 13:18, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
                • • But, no the first step and restriction is not a total ban. 'Hi Laura. I notice you are still having problems with BLP Spanish translations: ... . Especially because these are BLPs, we should have these articles and sources vetted by people more knowledgeable in Spanish before publication (See ) What do you say?' The Committee probably believes we are helpful to each other and interested in their work that is notable, so it would be good to foster that belief, since we regularly say we produce this work in a "spirit of camaraderie and cooperation". -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:42, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
                    • Considering the years of problems with this editor, as evidenced by the comments from others here as well, this is hardly "the first step". And I have no interest in playing games to hide the incompetence (or whatever reason applies) of some editor; yes, we are interested in their work and the notable athletes, and for that reason we feel that it is very problematic that the dedicated editor for these is making such a mess of it, and continues doing so after many earlier problems. That is the message the Committee should get, not some "spirit of camaraderie and cooperation". Fram (talk) 14:10, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
                      • Games? Cooperation is not a game, here. What years of problems with Spanish translations? You appear to admit that some of the work is serviceable and you say below that there is virtually no one else who is interested in writing for Misplaced Pages about the Committee. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:35, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
                        • Cooperation is a two-way street though. And it looks as if you prefer incorrect articles to no articles? I'ld rather not have an article in an encyclopedia, than an article with such blatantly incorrect information. And if I were the Committee, I certainly wouldn't want to have a Wikimedian in Residence who contributes such incorrect and poor articles. Fram (talk)
                          • I am seriously concerned with the fact that we seem to have some real problems with Laura's editing, she is aware of the discussion, but has chosen not to respond. I have left another message at her talk page, inviting he either here or to any other place at her choice.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:48, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
                            • • What? You have not read what I wrote (I said approach with a vetting plan). If cooperation is a street, this board is telling the OP that they have not driven on it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:00, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
                                • I do not understand what you are talking about. What cooperation? What board? Anyway she has responded, hopefully we can resolve the issue at least temporarily.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:21, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
                                  • • I assumed you wrote, "cooperation is a two way street", (is that someone else's unsigned comment?) so that is the cooperation I am talking about. As for board, I meant this comment notice board, AN. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:27, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
                                      • No, I did not write that, but anyway, thanks, I now understand what you mean. My communication with Laura is in the meanwhile going nowhere. If someone feels they can help I would welcome any help there.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:36, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
                                        • My apologies, my signature was missing there, I have now added it. Sorry for the confusion. Fram (talk) 15:39, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• It's rather poor form to start a thread here without a serious attempt to discuss the matter with Laura privately: it's not like she's difficult to contact. I've always found her to be receptive to comments, including in relation to errors in her DYK nominations. Nick-D (talk) 08:01, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
• Agreed with Nick and others - a topic ban should be the last stage of a process that has involved failed previous attempts to resolve any perceived problems and serial offending. I'm not seeing any evidence of any previous attempts at all - there's been a race on to find the biggest hammer to crack the nut, which is an abuse of the process being engaged. If you have a problem, talk to the editor about it. And the basis is weak too - many new articles on Misplaced Pages, even by experienced editors, are weak, contain misunderstandings of sources etc... then the Misplaced Pages community fixes them up. Orderinchaos 08:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
• I see her Australian colleagues are rushing to her defence. No, Laura Hale has consistently demonstrated a cavalier attitude to the use of sources; that is why she's been effectively chased out of Australian paralympic topics, where like a rapid bulldozer she created hundreds of article stubs that were marked by the poor use of sources and consequent factual errors—not to mention the display of a talent for appallingly bad prose. Something more substantive needs to be done to stop damage to the project. There are so many examples, but here is one where the BLP subject came along and corrected bloopers herself. You wonder whether Hale actually reads the sources she quotes.

  "what's not entirely clear to me from Fram's summary is whether someone has tried to have a conversation with Laura about this"—The problem is that anyone who approaches Hale concerning her substandard editorial practices is likely to be slapped in the face. That's what happened to me. So my advice is: don't dare to. Tony (talk) 09:35, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Firstly, I'm not a "colleague", nor are most here - I write on political and geographic topics, as a cursory inspection of my edits would quickly demonstrate. And I think it's a little misleading to not note your own mile-wide conflict of interest with regard to Laura - it'd be fair to say you don't like her very much for reasons that have nothing to do with WP and everything to do with the internal politics of a national chapter neither of you are part of any more. Orderinchaos 15:15, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

The more I look into this, the less I believe that a topic ban from using Spanish sources is really sufficient. Looking at random articles she created the past few months, I stumbled upon Cesar Neira Perez. It contains the sentence "He was the number one cyclists to finish in the Road Trial race." What is intended is that he won the gold medal at the Individual time trial, i.e. at the Cycling at the 2008 Summer Paralympics – Men's road time trial, where he is still a redlink BTW (the article she created should be at Cesar Neira). "Contrarreloj en Carretera" can literally be translated as "Trial in Road" or "Road Trial", but certainly in a cycling, sporting context, it is the road time trial that is intended. And "the number one cyclists to finish"? Well, that sentence seems to be a stock phrase, looking at Juan José Méndez Fernández: "He was the number three cyclists to finish in the Road Trial LC4 race." "He was the number two cyclists to finish in the Road Trial LC4 race. He was the number three cyclists to finish in the Individual Pursuit track LC4 race." But there are equally incorrect variations, like in Roberto Alcaide García: "He was the first racer to finish in the Individual Pursuit track LC2 race." "He was the second racer to finish in the Individual Pursuit track LC2 race. He was the third racer to finish in the Road Trial LC2 race." Perhaps he really was the third racer to finish, but that is totally unimportant. If he finished third though, and won a bronze medal, then perhaps that should be written a bit more clearly? I don't know whether LauraHale doesn't understand sports or doesn't copyedit her articles, but really, this kind of crap should not be created by someone with her credentials.

Two days ago, she added "he was a participant in the awarding of the Medals of Asturias component, ". What meant is that he was awarded a Medal of Asturias. In the same series of edits, she incorrectly removed the 1992 participation and medals this athlete won. Editors which are supposed to be knowledgeable in the field, but start removing correct and fundamental information (Paralympics participation and medals are quite essential info for a Paralympic athlete), make Misplaced Pages worse, not better, with little chance of being swiftly being corrected as they are implicitly trusted, and working in a field with very few editors. Fram (talk) 14:04, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Not understanding Spanish, or sports, or both? Juan Emilio Gutiérrez Berenguel: "He also participated in road events, finishing one event in eleventh place in a thirteen deep with a time of 1:42.51." This rather vague sentence refers to the Cycling at the 2012 Summer Paralympics – Men's road race C1–3, where he finished 11th in the time given (note that he still is a redlink in that article). So where does the "thirteen deep" come from. Well the actual field had 40 cyclists, of which 26 finished, but the source LauraHale used, , states "En la clase C3, Juan Emilio Gutiérrez fue undécimo (1:42.51), seguido de Juan José Méndez (1:43.32) y Maurice Eckard (1:43.32)." Logically, if you finish in 11th place, and there are two people behind you, then the field was 13 deep, no? Well, no, not if the source really means "followed by two other Spaniards (given) among a number of riders from other countries (not interesting to our readers, so not given)".

Her articles are filled with these errors, uninformative sentences, oft-repeated phrases, misconceptions, and so on, and I don't know what the best solution is to deal with it. Misplaced Pages:Competence is required comes to mind. With an editor with hundreds of DYKs and so on, it is not as if they are still learning the requirements. Fram (talk) 14:39, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

If what you say is true you'd need to provide sufficient evidence of mass errors in everything she creates. She's created a staggering number of articles on Spanish paralympians and I'd need to see examples of multiple serious errors in articles to warrant a ban. At the end of the day she's a volunteer here and doesn't have to bother. I'm curious Fram, do you suspect she's being paid to do this? This really doesn't seem to be the right place to make such a proposal and as you can see most of the editors who've turned up are Australian who know Laura and it's hardly going to attract a neutral investigation.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:16, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Of course she doesn't have to bother, that's hardly the point. I have no idea if she is paid or not, that's not really essential (although I would consider it a waste of money if she was); I notice loads of problems (probably not in every article, but in way too many), and no signs of improvement or even recognition of the problems. She has now responded on her talk page concerning this, claiming e.g. that "The three examples Fram provided were not about translation errors. One was a typographical error. One was contorting the English language to avoid close paraphrasing from a translation. The third was a misunderstanding of a topic, not an issue of translation." The third she refers to is putting "works as a lecturer" instead of "hobby is reading"; I fail to see how this "misundestanding of a topic" can be anything but an issue of translation, but feel free to provide an explanation that is not less charitable than "translation issue" (I don't think she doesn't know the difference between work and hobbies, and I also don't believe that she was deliberately including false information here, so which explanations remain possible?). Fram (talk) 15:47, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• @Dr. Blofeld: I think you are going too far in your defence of LauraHale. You are acting ignobly to the extent of casting aspersions on the motives of Fram even when the proof of Laura's incompetence is for all to see. Yes, we should stick up for fellow DYK contributors, but don't let blind loyalty obstruct the real goal of improving WP. Languages are full of intricacies, and many do not become apparent until you become an advanced user who understands the culture as well as the words themselves. LH is so obviously out of her depth with Spanish. She does not understand it properly to make good sense of the story, which explains why this is a recurring problem. I think you, of all people, should be having private words in her ear to get her to amend her ways before the community does with blunt force. -- Ohc  02:36, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

How am I going too far in defending Laura??? I think my response has been fairly neutral. All I know is that Fram for a very long time has not approved of Laura and he felt that way long before she even began working on Spanish articles, it stems from her earliest Australian sportspeople articles. If every article Laura produces does contain major translation errors then this is a clear problem and needs to be solved. I've simply said that I really want to see evidence that she's consistently makes translation errors. A handful of articles with minor issues out of several thousand Laura has created isn't enough for me to think that a ban from Spanish translation would be necessary. Rather I'd urge her to slow down and get a friend in Spain or on here to proof read them.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:46, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I tried to talk to her at her talk page, but I got the impression she believes the percentage of her errors is low. Then I randomly took one article she created (the last one) and found four significant errors (which I corrected). So I believe this is a problem, I believe a topic ban is not the best solution (since the problem is not restricted to translation errors), and I do not see from her side any willingness to slow done. May be you can help on her talk page to take the matter further. Note that I am perfectly neutral, I do not have any issues with her, I do knot know who is her employer and I do not want to know, and our previous interaction was reasonably pleasant.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:41, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

"A handful of articles with minor issues out of several thousand Laura has created isn't enough for me to think that a ban from Spanish translation would be necessary." Not "out of several thousand", but out of the handful she created most recently. And I don't think claiming that someone works as a lecturer when what is said is that his hobby is reading is a "minor issue". And you don't need to show that every article contains such errors, if the frequency is sufficiently high then that is enough of a problem. Anyway, I have since provided a fair number of examples indicating that while the problem is not restricted to translation errors, it is very widespread nevertheless. Fram (talk) 12:59, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, so long as you tried to speak to her and are convinced that she is genuinely causing a major problem with every article.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:03, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Again, someone doesn't need to be "causing a major problem with every article" to get a restriction. There are major problems with too many articles, but that doesn't mean that every article is problematic (nearly all have more minor problems though). As for speaking with her, in the past I had a discussion with her about incorrectly using Spanish sources (on the Flat Bastion Road article), I tried to keep her out of DYKs because she had too many problems there, and there was the DYK discussion of last month regarding a major hook mistake due to an incorrect translation. I didn't have a further discussion on her talk page, having received the impression from those discussions that that would not have been welcomed or fruitful at all. Before the note about the December DYK discussion, the last time I went to her talk page was to inform her of the deletion discussion for Template:2012 Australian Paralympic Ski Team, which she had created. Fram (talk) 14:36, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

So, is it your proposal now that Laura Hale be banned from Misplaced Pages for incompetence? Since your first proposal is failing, is it wise to go long? Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:52, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

No, I am further researching her contributions, and encounter further major issues, some directly related to the original post, some more tangential but not less problematic. Any thoughts on how to resolve this are welcome, but I no longer think that simply restricting her use of Spanish source will be sufficient (nor the help of editors who have a better knowledge of Spanish and are willing to help). It seems to be a more general problem with her editing, as seen in the above examples and in the comments of people who noticed the same when she was working on articles for Australian athletes. Mentoring may be a possibility. Requiring her to go through AfC, which was recently imposed on another long-term contributor, is also possible. Letting her continue as before is also a possibility, but I fail to see why nyone would support that. Fram (talk) 14:59, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Has there been an RFC/U? Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:12, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Has there been any somewhat successful RfC/U on any well-established editor in the last few years? Fram (talk) 15:39, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

That probably depends on what one means by success: 1)Identifying the problems? 2) having a good discussion about it? 3) leading to mutual understanding? 4)leading to resolution? or 5) leading to a basis for further action? Some have probably had some success in some of those areas but not in others. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:53, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Whoever suggested that Laura didn't aware of this or calling it "serious lack of AGF" should give their head a little shake. During the discussion in DYK last month, it already mentioned Spanish issue. That's sufficient to say that she's been given notice (or warning, depending on how you see it) to be careful with it. OhanaUnited 19:46, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I see merit in an RfC/U, mainly because discussions like this end up in a wall of text which discourages passers-by. I have noticed her name pop up in a few discussions like this, and I think it is worth a well-structured RfC with all the evidence in one place (sorry Fram). I have not looked into her editing myself as have been busy elsewhere but this seems to be popping up frequently enough it needs some sort of more formal resolution one way or the other. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:49, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Now I looked into her last created page (Jan 4), and reported the results at her talk page. On top of the awkward prose (which I may be wrong about as a non-native English speaker) I found at least four issues, some of which might originate from a bad translation, and others presumably from elsewhere. Based on this analysis, (i) I believe we have indeed a problem here; (ii) a topic ban as suggested is not an appropriate solution, and I do not knwo what would be appropriate. Possibly RFC/U is for now the best course of action. There we can discuss problems, and, hopefully together with Laura, find the best way to address them. If somebody things that one randomly taken article for whatever reason is not representative please let me know, I can do a couple of more (it took me about an hour to handle this article).--Ymblanter (talk) 21:05, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

This thread is a perfect example of what's wrong with Admin noticeboards, and why I am very reluctant to bring any problem to them. Anyone with any negative feelings about an editor, from any time in the history of Misplaced Pages, is free to leap in with irrelevant negative bullshit that shouldn't but does build an even bigger negative image of the accused for the case at hand. Those who join this massive pile-on of mud suffer no negative consequences themselves. The real case gets buried in crap. Misplaced Pages's justice systems stink! HiLo48 (talk) 21:18, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Template:Uninvolvededitor This thread is too involved for me to jump in at this point, but you need to seriously tone it down, HiLo48. Erpert 01:32, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Why? Is what I said not true? HiLo48 (talk) 01:42, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that is a systematic problem with the way the dramaboards work. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:20, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• This needs to end (support ban). There have been enough language and other problems with articles User:LauraHale has been writing on Spanish paralympians. Fram drafted the original complaint in November 2012 that didn't fly; she was reprimanded at DYK in early December 2013 for her now infamous "Did you know... that 2006 Spanish Paralympic alpine skier Daniel Caverzaschi was ranked 20th in the world in wheelchair tennis in October 2013?". At that time she offered her excuses and promised to be more vigilant. Her skills in Spanish are clearly not up to it, and I had suggested she voluntarily stop using machine translations. She said that she had a pool of Spanish-speakers she could call upon, but I don't see any efficacy in that from the results demonstrated hereinabove. I also see no embarrassment, contrition, nor sense that she admits to anything but a bit of carelessness. She has so far kept to her talk page, it seems that she is deliberately ducking this discussion although she was duly warned, hoping that others might think that she hasn't been adequately warned and that it will go away if she keeps a lower profile. Whilst she admits to some basic human failings, she casts Fram as the bogeyman, probably hoping that the messenger would get shot instead of her.

  Fram was persistently on the back of another editor whom I (and many others) thought was close to God. They spotted the early warning signs, but it was only much later and after escalating problems that the community later realised the legitimacy of Fram's concerns and banned/blocked said editor. Although I would like to see enthusiastic editors get the benefit of the doubt, I'd say that the assumption of goodwill is wearing mighty thin. IMHO, Fram is again spot on. I hope that the community realises sooner, rather than later, that Laura is becoming a menace and needs to immediately stop, or be stopped from, using sources in a language that she does not have full mastery of. It's time for a zero tolerance approach to Laura's continued incompetence and blame game. Let it be made clear at the same time that if her "typos" (particularly when numbers get mistyped, transposed or otherwise mis-stated) are a matter of continuing concern with her work, that the community will ban her from using a keyboard to contribute to Misplaced Pages. I don't know if she realises she may lose her job if she gets banned from WP for any length of time, but so be it. -- Ohc  02:18, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• Is that what this is about? Targeting her employment? I did wonder above why Fram brought that into it. I'm sure something similar came up in a past arbcom case. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:55, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• It's not "targeting her employment". You got it the other way around, as she seems to be using Misplaced Pages to further her own ends. But note that she's not doing her "employers" any favours either with the very blatant errors she is committing. Oh, I wonder how they would react if they knew the truth... -- Ohc  03:02, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• That seems like a pretty serious allegation. Do you have any evidence for it? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not interested in dishing out any dirt. Go look elsewhere. -- Ohc  03:25, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose from editor 9,600 mi / 15,400 km from Australia. As previously noted, concerns should be discussed with editors before raising them on AN or ANI. NE Ent 03:04, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. There is good evidence on both sides, but not good enough to merit a topic ban, and yes, I looked at the diffs. Viriditas (talk) 06:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support, part of along-term pattern. Graham87 08:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support - this is a long-term issue with this user not confined to DYK, but which also extends to GAC and FAC. I cannot in good conscience oppose this topic-ban when this user continuously flouts editorial process and shows a lack of discipline in their editing. Quality not quantity. When a user focuses on the creation of poorly-reviewed, poorly-sourced and poorly-written content, there exists a problem. James • 9:27pm • 10:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support per James above. Andreas JN466 23:05, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support Compelling evidence that suggests long-term poor QA & disregard for community concerns. 94.194.24.46 (talk) 02:11, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - The above anonymous IP seems dubious...New anonynympus IP account that from his summary comments HERE seems to know his way around WP extremely well. Dubious? Yes. Maybe even a disengenuous sockpuppet perhaps? Mercy11 (talk) 18:23, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• Since Laura has declined to participate in this thread or in further conversation about her sourcing/article creation habits, I support this proposal with a wrinkled nose, though I prefer Tony's "Formal Proposal" below as a way to handle Spanish issues, and I'm beginning to wonder whether some sort of overarching article creation probation may be needed as well based on evidence people are surfacing here. Per the evidence given by other users, it seems that the trouble is more in Laura's article-creation QA than in her Spanish skills in particular, but it currently seems to be leaking out mostly in Spanish-related articles. Topic-banning Laura entirely from Spanish-source-using is therefore using a hammer that's a bit too blunt for my taste, but I'd take this option over no restriction at all. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 03:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose It’s the job of the DYK team to check the quality of the work that is published. This witch-hunt is trying to mask their own incompetence. See also WP:SOFIXIT. Lugnuts 07:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
  • This is not solely about DYKs though, many of her articles are never submitted for DYK. And DYK is not a substitute for fat checking, editors are responsible for the content they produce, blaming the errors on the reviewers is ignoring the initial problem completely. Fram (talk) 11:05, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
    • "Fat-checking"? Haha. Brilliant. Lugnuts 14:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Premature. It looks far too much like a grudge match from those who oppose her work for other reasons - merely identifying possibly valid issues isn't enough excuse to ignore cornerstone principles and jump straight to the Wikilawyering. I'm not endorsing the content produced in saying this - Laura clearly needs to work on some things, but I believe reasonably communicating with her on these and perhaps having someone who's stronger in Spanish-English translation being available for her to speak to would likely solve the problems. If it doesn't, well, that's a matter for the future. I just think as someone that's been around a while (coming up to my 8-year anniversary) that Misplaced Pages has tended in a more Wiki-litigious and punitive direction when people are trying to contribute positively, it's a lot tougher to be a newbie or developing editor now than when I joined. Orderinchaos 08:33, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
  • But LauraHale clearly isn't a "newbie or developing editor" anymore. Fram (talk) 11:05, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
• I'm also in favour of the ban per what I said earlier. OhanaUnited 18:09, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per what I and others have said earlier. Moreover, appears resolved below (per Hale and The Rambling Man cmmts). On other issues: 1) RfC/U has been noted as an option, not overly blunt and ill-fitting topic bans. 2) It was wise of Hale not to respond earlier, while the OP was going '... and another thing ... and another thing ... and another thing'; 3) If you have not even tried to talk to someone about a ban proposal against them before coming to AN, don't bring it here; 4) Punishing the User for past Australian sins is not a good or even decent basis for this ban; 5) Hale should act upon some of the sound advice she is getting in the area of QA -- most people do not like to clean-up, when the maker does not appear to care. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:15, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support - idea of editing encyclopedia using sources in language that you don't understand is already quite surreal on its own, doing so in BLPs just makes it much worse. Frankly its even questionable should she be editing BLPs at all as thinking that google translate is sufficient indicates quite serious attitude problem.--Staberinde (talk) 18:11, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose ridiculous proposal for a topic ban. Such a wide-ranging topic ban is a serious and major penalty for a content creator, and should require - at the very least - prior discussion of the problem on the target's talk page. None of that happened here. What should happen is that, if the complainants are really seriously concerned about Laura's editing, not just following up past disputes and the like, they should take the time to open an RfC/U so that this can be discussed properly. The unwillingness to do that (there's been plenty of opportunity now) is an indication of how bad faith this is. Oh, and the "hey perhaps she could get fired from her job" people need some blocks laying down on them. There's already been an arbcom case on the last editor that used that tactic against Laura, it's not rocket science. (I did give them an opportunity to retract - above.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:26, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

More evidence

Yesterday, I noted how she removed correct pertinent information in these edits: the article stated correctly that José Manuel González had participated and won medals in the 1992 Paralympics, but LauraHale removed this for unknown reasons.

Picking other articles she created on Spanish Paralympians randomly, I came across two table tennis players, Tomas Pinas and Álvaro Valera. The sentence "He played table tennis at the 2004 Summer Paralympics, 2008 Summer Paralympics, 2012 Summer Paralympics and the 2012 Summer Paralympics." (with the repeat of the 2012 Games) appeared in both articles, which caught my eye. Looking further, it appears quite strongly that she copied the (at first glance basically correct, despite two different birthdates) Pinas article to create the Valera article, and couldn't be bothered to do even the most basic checks. The result is that the Valera article starts with "Alvaro Valera Muñoz-Vargas (born October 16, 1982 in Seville) is a Class 3 table tennis athlete from Spain." (Pinas is a Class-3 athlete, Valera is a Class-6 to Class-8 athlete), and that his main achievements include "In 2008, he finished third in the Class 3 singles table tennis game. In 2008, he finished third in the Class 7 men's singles.", which would be a unique combination. Obviously, the first bronze medal was Pinas', not Valera's.

To add insult to injury, by copying the Pinas article, who started participating in 2004, she somehow missed that Valera also competed in the 2000 Paralympics, where he won a gold medal. So she wrote an article where she categorized a Paralympian in the wrong category, awarded him the wrong medal, and omitted the most important of his participations and medals. Fram (talk) 09:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Trying to find a source that says he competed in 1992 paralympics - not used to looking for stuff like this....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:10, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

The most authoritative, , search for surname:Gonzalez and first name:Jose Manuel in "Athlete search", and you get all the results. Here he is listed as one of seven Spanish athletes to compete in the 1992 and 2012 Paralympics. This page from the Asturian Radio and Television lists him as participating in 1992, 1996, and so on. Seems pretty conclusive to me. Not really a "typo or other minor problem"... Fram (talk) 10:51, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. Take a look at these five pages:

• Antonio Delgado Palomo: born March 26, 1962 (created by LauraHale 11:19, 30 October 2013‎): 14 years old at the time of his Paralympics
• Julio Gutierrez García: born March 26, 1962 (created by LauraHale 12:14, 30 October 2013‎‎): 14 years old at the time of his Paralympics
• Eloy Guerrero Asensio: born March 26, 1962 (created by LauraHale 12:16, 30 October 2013‎): 14 years old at the time of his Paralympics
• José Santos Poyatos: born March 26, 1962 (created by LauraHale 16:39, 30 October 2013‎): 14 years old at the time of his Paralympics
• Francisco Benitez: born March 26, 1962 (created by LauraHale 10:36, 6 November 2013): 10 years old at the time of his Paralympics

Every single article created by LauraHale needs thorough fact checking for even the most basic facts. These are not occasional mistakes; this is a systematic lack of applying the minimal care that can be expected before posting something to the mainspace. We all make mistakes, but I have rarely encountered someone who does this so frequently and fundamentally, and gets away with it. Fram (talk) 10:44, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Made any attempt to fix those pages? No, didn't think so. Lugnuts 09:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

And your point is...? Are you going to check and correct all her pages? Have you checked or corrected even one of them? I have, but I'm not going to do all of them, and certainly not if nothing is done to prevent a further influx of similar problems. Have you actually looked at WP:SOFIXIT before linking to it? The second section is WP:RECKLESS. Fram (talk) 10:51, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I did . What is your point please?--Ymblanter (talk) 11:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

My point is that you'd rather sit here and bitch about it, rather than do anything. Carry on. With doing nothing. Lugnuts 11:23, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I am trying to do something about it. You don't. You prefer people creating hundreds articles riddled with errors (and worse, removing correct basic information from articles), and other editors cleaning up after them time and time again? That seems a rather unproductive way to proceed. Fram (talk) 11:33, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

No, you're not doing anything. Just blaming others and not doing any real work. Like most fireguards on here. Lugnuts 14:40, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

The next one I worked on was almost fine, just some mess with the references (which is unfortunately now a common sight even for English language sources and otherwise good and productive editors).--Ymblanter (talk) 09:10, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Formal proposal

In view of the ongoing damage to the project being caused by Laura Hale's insufficient knowledge of the Spanish language and her poor editorial practices, any article text she creates and/or edits that is derived from Spanish-language sources should be worked on first in a sandbox, and be transferred into mainspace only when endorsed as acceptable by at least one editor from each of the following classes—those with sufficient skills in:

1. both Spanish and English, to review and endorse each of her translated texts; and
2. English, to review the quality of the prose.

This proposal, which I suggest should be a 90-day trial, would involve Laura Hale's informing AN of the editors who have agreed to do this, and a dated signature on the sandbox talkpage declaring that a version is acceptable for transfer to mainspace in each respect (1 and 2 above). Her progress would be reviewed at AN after the 90-day period.

The alternative would be to ban her use of any non-English-language sources. Tony (talk) 02:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, This is actually a second formal proposal. The first one, which seems not to enjoy consensus, was the one started by Fram above "I would like to propose..." --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I have previously mentioned on numerous occasions at DYK that I would be glad to check any DYK using Spanish-language sources. Having said that, I am not available to work for Laura Hale or to check her DYKs; considering the extremely poor quality of her work and the long-standing problems, I don't understand why she hasn't been topic banned from DYK. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:18, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• I would support Tony's proposal as a first choice iff we or she can line up editors before the close of this thread to be Laura's "designated checkers". Passing a sanction that says she has to have her work evaluated, without having anyone on hand who says they'll evaluate it, is setting us up for Laura either never being able to create an article again (due to lack of reviewers), or deciding to sneak articles in the backdoor just to see them published (due to impatience). A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 03:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
• I also have reservations about setting up a complex machinery to follow one rogue editor's work. And although I would have supported simply banning her from using any non-English source in articles she contributes to, it seems that the problems are not so much her ability to grasp Spanish, but more down to her general inability to contribute responsibly and with due care. But something needs to be done. -- Ohc  06:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - seems excessive given the relatively small scale of the problem being described. Also seems to set up an unnecessary hierarchy. Orderinchaos 08:36, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Why not juwt ban her from translating? Or from misleading translations? Not to be ultratechy, but is using a type of source really a topic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Howunusual (talk • contribs) 14:32, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• Echoing Ohconfucius and SandyGeorgia above. Andreas JN466 01:37, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Statement by LauraHale

I apologize for not responding earlier. As someone who has created over 1,200 articles,, I am sure that there are a number of typos and some other minor problems with my work. Perfection is not required to contribute to Misplaced Pages. The issue of potential problems was first brought to my attention in early December 2013, and I responded on December 4 to affirm that I would be more careful with my use of Spanish sources to try to insure better understanding of the source material. Most of the examples brought up here have pre-dated this committment, and I do not think there has been any demonstration of systematic problems since that commitment. I have repeatedly and privately asked for people to assist me with translations since that time on IRC, via e-mail and in person. I stand by that commitment from early December to make sure that my understanding of Spanish sources is more accurate and I am daily working to improve my own Spanish speaking skills. I would be more than happy to accept a six month requirement that before I move any article to the main space that heavily relies on Spanish language sources, that it be vetted by a native language Spanish speaker who has read all the sources and checked the accuracy of my text against the article, and then have that person comment on the draft article talk page before moving it. --LauraHale (talk) 08:45, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Good enough. Move along here, nothing else to see. Lugnuts 09:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

"Typos and other minor problems"? Have you looked at the evidence (e.g. in the section "more evidence")? And these are not from your full list of 1,200 articles, these are all from articles from the last few months, including multiple serious issues within the last dozen articles you created. Downplaying the percenatge of problems and the seriousness of them in one go gives the strong impression that you don't realize (or don't want to admit) what the actual issues are. Perhaps you can show for the next six months that you can create accurate articleson English-language sources, before we let you back near sourcs in other languages? Fram (talk) 10:30, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Waa-waa-waaa, this poridge is too hot. Give it a rest. Lugnuts 11:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Any reason why you are trying to turn this into a childish and uncivil discussion? If you can't behave like an adult, go find some other playground. Fram (talk) 11:35, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

No personal attacks please. You should know better. Again, hiding behind your own failures rather than fixing the articles in question. Lugnuts 14:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't want to get involved in whether or not there should be formal bans or any other action, and I have no doubt that @LauraHale: is a valuable contributor and asset to the project; also if the issue is in hand as of 4 December 2013 than that's great. Just to say, though, that having read the above I would like to add my support to the request that Laura should be a bit more careful about making sure facts are correct, and not being flippant or dismissive when concerns are raised. The lack of necessity for WP:PERFECTION is of course an important part of the project, allowing for people who aren't brilliant writers or who just have sketchy information on a subject, but it is certainly not a licence to indiscriminately write factually incorrect material in articles in the hope that someone else will clean them up afterwards. The case of the five paralympians mentioned above seems a classic example of this. They all show the same date of birth, which I assume is not correct for all of them, a situation which could have easily been avoided with more rigorous checking of the text before or after hitting the save button. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 10:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

If you want further examples of translation problems (and general sloppy editing) which happened since 4 December, take a look at these three, made within the space of twenty minutes on 24 December 2013: , , and . "the Championship of Spain by Autonomous Open Paralympic Swimming"? Let's see, that very strangely named tournament is the "Campeonato de España Open por Autonomías de Natación Paralímpica", which even Google Translate translates better than you do ("Open Championship of Spain by autonomous Paralympic Swimming"). What is meant is the "Open Paralympic Swimming Championship of Spain by Autonomous Community" ("Autonomías" being the Autonomous communities of Spain). Not a major problem, but not really an indication that anything has improved since 4 December. Oh, and of course the inevitable copy-paste error needs to be included; Alejandro Sanchez Palomero: "In 2013, he competed in the Championship of Spain by Autonomous Open Paralympic Swimming where she represented the Balearic Islands." If you change one "she" to a "he" in a sentence, it's best to change the other one as well, to avoid strange results. Fram (talk) 11:30, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I think we've established that Laura makes many errors and needs to take more care before moving articles to the mainspace, but correct me if I'm wrong, above she has volunteered to a six-month embargo on moving any article translated from Spanish to the mainspace before being vetted by a native Spanish language editor. That seems like a good solution without dragging up more and more of this (which I'm not sure is benefitting anyone). For what it's worth, I'm happy to volunteer to vet these from an English-speaking perspective to knock Fram's most recent concern on the head. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

A six-month ban from DYK nomination is also in order, until we can be sure that her editorial practices have improved significantly. Tony (talk) 12:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Well presumably that isn't necessary if the new articles she nominates have to be double-vetted? And User:Lugnuts does make a valid point, if these DYKs are getting to the mainpage, it's an indictment of the DYK review process as much as Laura's editing skills. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:30, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem with such a page-vetting by one or two people for the next months. I'm just worried by her apparent dismissal of the number and seriousness of the problems her articles have. But I assume that either she will improve her work, or the "vetters" will make it clear what is wrong with it, and that in six months time we will have a much better view of the situation and way forward. Thank you for the offer to check the articles. Fram (talk) 14:41, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Goodness, who is Lugnuts? Grow up. On a more serious note, it's possible that Spanish Paralympic Committee might know of this very public thread. We should proceed with that in mind. Tony (talk) 03:01, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

He happens to be the most productive film editor on[REDACTED] Tony, and in my experience of him he generally has a fair outlook on most things.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:37, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

More to the point - who the hell are you? Have you fixed any of these articles, or are you too busy back-slapping your lynch-mob buddies? It's not the former, if you're struggling with that one. Lugnuts 18:36, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

So, Lugnuts, what do you think about ? Recent LauraHale article, not yet introduced in this discussion, again contains rather blatant errors. I corrected this one (well, I removed the most obvious errors, can't promise that there aren't any others left), but I'm really not going to spend dozens (hundreds?) of hours checking and correcting all the others, and certainly not when nothing is done to stop the influx of new ones at the same time. Any constructive comments about this whole situation? Fram (talk) 17:39, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Jesus wept. The evidence is overwhelming, as they say... Somebody put us out of misery, please. -- Ohc  08:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Why in this whole thread has the fact that these are BLPs not even entered the discussion? Did that policy expire in 2013? Ultra Venia (talk) 20:40, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. It also seems like someone at the WMF needs a smack to back of their head for officially supporting (paying?) someone (cf. "Wikimedian in Residence" status) to write about topics that normally require competence in a foreign language, when said competence is clearly lacking. Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Jmh649 abuse of position as administrator

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

There is currently a NPOV discussion going on at the NPOV Noticeboard here and here. I placed a NPOV template at the top of Circumcision to notify new users about the NPOV discussion so they can participate. User:Jmh649 has removed the template several times which can be seen in the following diffs, 1, 2, and 3. I gave him a warning here, he reacted to this by threatening to block me here.

I should also point out that User:Zad68 is also one of the users involved in the content dispute at Circumcision who does not believe there is a NPOV violation. ScienceApe (talk) 02:26, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't see what the problem is here. You made three reverts and then Jmh649 told you that you might be blocked if you continue. He was correct--you should expect a block if you break 3RR. He didn't say I will block you, so there's no issue with admining while involved. I'm not sure why you're reporting Zad68 either, he's certainly free to maintain that the article is NPOV. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:31, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

So anyone can remove a NPOV template at the top of an article even when there's a ongoing discussion at Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard, and the template explicitly states not to remove it while there's a NPOV discussion going on? I didn't report User:Zad68, I merely mentioned that he is one of the users involved in the NPOV discussion and his position. Indeed he did not explicitly state he would block me, but the impression I got was that he would use his administrator powers without going through the proper channels. ScienceApe (talk) 03:01, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

The status of an NPOVN discussion is not the only valid reason for removal, as stated in the {{NPOV}} documentation. It's one of those other reasons that Doc James discussed with you in your conversation with him about it on his User Talk. Zad68 03:06, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Anyone is free to boldly add a template to a page they feel is non-neutral, but if it is reverted, then it's time to discuss. See WP:BRD for the relevant practice. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:08, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

You don't understand. We've been discussing for a long time and getting no where. Please visit the relevant discussions here and here. It has all the information. Long story short, we have been discussing for months now and getting no where, that's why I took the discussion to NPOV Noticeboard. User:Jmh649's edits have not been constructive, he has been trying to stifle any changes to the status quo. He's pushing an agenda based on the evidence I cited at the NPOV Noticeboard, that's why he's removing the NPOV template. ScienceApe (talk) 03:16, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

So it sounds like you tried to change the article and failed to get consensus, and now you want to tag it to reflect your disapproval, correct? Mark Arsten (talk) 03:33, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

NO I DID NOT. I never tried to make any edits to the article besides putting that template on the top recently, and you can check the edit history if you don't believe me. I only made suggestions and remarks on the talk page, all were stonewalled by Zad, and Jmh649. You first strawmanned me by implying that I'm reporting Zad when I didn't, and now you made baseless assumptions about my editing behavior without even reading the relevant pages I linked. ScienceApe (talk) 03:42, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, I apologize if I misunderstood things, but it seems like there is a consensus against you at this point. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Based on what? I only started the discussions at NPOV Noticeboard a few hours ago. ScienceApe (talk) 04:32, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Small detail, you are also threatening to block Jmh649. Seems like a case of sour grapes. The Banner talk 02:35, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes I warned him which I stated in the beginning because he was removing the NPOV template. ScienceApe (talk) 03:01, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

So? You warned him that the next step could be a block, but due to the same type of behaviour he warned you that the next step could be block. So no issue here about misusing admin-rights as warning is a normal process during an edit war, giving you (and him) the chance to stop. But instead you tried to use a Plan B to get rid of somebody opposing you while involved in a content discussion. If you have promised Santa to be a good boy this year, don't be shocked when he has some penalty points in his book... The Banner talk 03:32, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• ScienceApe is not an admin and cannot "threaten" a block. At best they can threaten to report. The same does not apply to Doc James: their warning on ScienceApe's talk page can easily be read as saying "I will block you". I have suggested to Doc that they use the standard edit-warring template, which is more neutrally worded. A personally tweaked warning from someone who also is an administrator can easily be read as a threat, so in that sense the complaint here is justified--but I don't see the need for any administrative action at this point, except to reiterate the general point, that in specific situations admins should avoid sounding like admins if they are primarily editors in that situation. And let me add that there is no proof of abuse here. Drmies (talk) 04:18, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

So anyone can remove a NPOV template at the top of an article even when there's a ongoing discussion at Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard, and the template explicitly states not to remove it while there's a NPOV discussion going on? ScienceApe (talk) 03:43, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

That's not what the documentation at {{NPOV}} says. Are you not actually reading the documentation for the template you're trying to use? Zad68 03:48, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm talking about what it says on the template. "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (January 2014)" ScienceApe (talk) 03:55, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Click through to the template documentation and read that. Following what the template documentation says should resolve this. Zad68 03:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I already read it. On what grounds are you justifying the removal of a NPOV template on an article when there's an on-going discussion at NPOV Noticeboard? ScienceApe (talk) 04:04, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry we're having so much trouble communicating. Maybe somebody else can help explain what the documentation says. Zad68 04:06, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• Is there still a basis for this to be here as an open discussion at WP:AN? Zad68 03:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

This is why I mentioned Zad68 in my initial post. I wasn't reporting him as Mark Arsten's suggested. I mentioned him because Zad68 is on User:Jmh649's side. ScienceApe (talk) 03:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the above suggestions to read the NPOV documentation, a simpler idea would be to think how Misplaced Pages would work if anyone was able to slap an unmovable POV tag on an article. There would be lot of tags if they could not be removed until everyone was happy. Johnuniq (talk) 04:28, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

You haven't read the discussion. This isn't something that I slapped on there haphazardly. This is the result of months of constant and fruitless debate on the talk pages. Further, I'm not the only one who believes there is a NPOV violation. In fact I did not act on this until User talk:Hans Adler made this comment. At that point I believed there was enough dissent to challenge the status quo. ScienceApe (talk) 04:36, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

The basis of your NPOVN discussion is IAR. So you are basing your proposed article content changes on a head count of like minded editors instead of high quality sourcing and Misplaced Pages content policies?? Zad68 04:50, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

So far, I see no evidence of "abuse of administrator powers" by Jmh649. I see him acting as an editor in a content dispute. I have read the discussion on the talk page and at NPOVN, and I agree with the point that Johnuniq made above. Tags should not remain on an article indefinitely just because one or two editors dislike the current version. This article should be neither pro nor anti circumcision. It should remain balanced.Cullen Let's discuss it 05:22, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have said he abused his position as an administrator to intimidate me with a block, which is just as egregious of an abuse as actually blocking me. Whether or not he was going to block me himself is independent of the fact that that's the impression I got from his warning. Strawman fallacy, the tags were never on the article indefinitely, I put them on earlier today, furthermore the intention was never to keep them on indefinitely. I only intended for them to be on the article until the NPOV discussion was over. ScienceApe (talk) 05:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

No, you are strawmanning me again and misrepresenting my position. I was explaining what was the impetus for me to bring the issues that we've been having for months to NPOV noticeboard to demonstrate to Johnuniq that this wasn't a haphazard thought based solely upon my own will. I can't count how many times you've strawmanned me, and I'm getting tired of it. Please stop it. ScienceApe (talk) 05:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Seriously? I was simply letting you know that if you continue reverting you may get blocked. It was just a heads up. You are more than welcome to ignore it. I will not be blocking you. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:50, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be best if both of you were blocked for edit warring. The user, no matter how misguided he may be, was trying to point readers to a NPOV concern via a link to a discussion in the template. You showed up and bit his head off. You might have caffeine running through your veins, but it would be nice if the "stimulated" amongst us would slow the fuck down and discuss things once in a blue moon. I'm not seeing much discussion about the tag but loads of reverts. Viriditas (talk) 05:55, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I propose a better idea. Leave the NPOV template on the article until the NPOV discussion is over. Then you can remove it. Leave us both unblocked so we can participate in the NPOV discussion. ScienceApe (talk) 05:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

There is no evidence of a NPOV issue. Having a couple of editors show up (a number of which are WP:SPI) who disagree with the best available evidence (recent systematic reviews and meta analysis) complain does not make it so. No one has been able to articulate an issue on the talk page here . This is a requirement per the NPOV template. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:42, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy. The talk page clearly links to the NPOV/N discussions, so the intent of the requirement is met. NE Ent 11:18, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

First of all Jmh clearly went WP:3rr. Secondly WP:ADMINACCT requires "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Misplaced Pages-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed." (emphasis mine). His curt dismissive reply to SA's initial inquiry Not how it works does not meet that standard. (So how does it work, then? is the natural response). The template itself states "do not remove until" so editors invoking the fine print of the /doc should have the courtesy to wikilink it; template docs are often not read (e.g. {{hat}} documentation requires hats be signed, but that's frequently overlooked.) Finally, the path of least drama™ is to leave the tag, let the NPOV/N discussions run to a close, and then remove the tag.NE Ent 11:28, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Another admin failing WP:ADMINACCT. Which means it will get swept under the carpet once again. Lugnuts 14:10, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Tell me Lugnuts, when did you stop beating your wife? Resolute 14:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

After I stopped punching your mother. Why do you ask? Lugnuts 14:53, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

If you want to get involved in the article in question bring high quality sources as was suggested by a few others here . ScienceApe is very well aware of the referencing requirements of WP:RS. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:54, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I can only recommend against following the advice of Jmh649 (signing as "Doc James"), the user who passed this article as GA a year ago. The article's current owners count a position paper by the American Academy of Pediatrics (a professional organisation of physicians who mostly practise circumcision and profit from it, in the only Western country that has extremely high circumcision numbers) among the sources of highest quality, but downplay a position paper by the Royal Dutch Medical Association which comes to opposite conclusions. And given their numerical superiority there seems to be little that can be done about this. Hans Adler 17:22, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Seeing as neither organization supports universal neonatal circumcision I do not see this contradiction of which you speak. Neither organization supports a ban either. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:00, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

It is true that the KNMG doesn't support a ban, but here is why: "There are good reasons for a legal prohibition of non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors, as exists for female genital mutilation. However, the KNMG fears that a legal prohibition would result in the intervention being performed by non-medically qualified individuals in circumstances in which the quality of the intervention could not be sufficiently guaranteed. This could lead to more serious complications than is currently the case." But this doesn't fit your narrative of circumcision as an entirely rational, beneficial, painless and harmless procedure which is merely rooted in tradition. For a start, it contains the word "mutilation", which of course is essentially taboo on the article because it sounds so negative. (It does appear once, under "Aboriginals".) So you keep marginalising this just like you are marginalising sources that cover circumcision from a legal or cultural point of view. Hans Adler 22:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Zad68 removed the POV tag with the following edit summary: "assessment of consensus at WP:AN discussion was that this tag wasn't supported, and the prerequisites for the use of the tag have not been met, as detailed on Talk page". Does anyone else think that this edit summary is deceptive?

• There was and still is no such consensus in this discussion, let alone among uninvolved editors.
• Zad68 does not even claim such a consensus on the talk page, but only claims that there is no consensus that the tag should be there. (No wonder. The question has hardly been addressed between all the red herrings.)
• Zad68 is, however, hiding behind a misreading of a statement by Mark Arsten above: "Well, I apologize if I misunderstood things, but it seems like there is a consensus against you at this point." This clearly must have referred to the (false) consensus at Talk:Circumcision that has existed for years, rather than to any consensus in the present discussion. Given the state of this discussion when Zad68 wrote that , it's hard to believe he genuinely misunderstood the comment in this way. Where a question has not even been discussed, there can be no consensus on it.

I will now reinstate the POV tag as the article is severely biased and represents exclusively an American, pro-circumcision bias while downplaying adverse effects and the significant non-medical aspects of the practice. Hans Adler 17:32, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Mark has clarified his statement (below) and I understood him correctly. Will you be restoring the article to the status quo ante by removing the tag now? Zad68 18:31, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

The clarification doesn't help. By "the present discussion" I meant the present thread at AN, where you claimed in your edit summary that a consensus existed. There did not, and Mark Arsten did not claim it. Apparently you just put it into the edit summary because it would have been a much more convincing justification, and by referring to the talk page for details, where you misrepresented Mark Arsten , you got a certain degree of plausible deniability. Very unfair tactics, but not at all untypical for what has been happening at that article.

Once again in detail, as it is tricky:

• Your edit comment: "assessment of consensus at WP:AN discussion was that this tag wasn't supported"
• Your comment on Talk:Circumcision trying to justify the revert: 'As covered at the WP:AN discussion here there isn't support for keeping the addition of the article-wide NPOV tag in place. In particular Mark Arsten's assessment of the consensus of that discussion was "it seems like there is a consensus against you at this point"'

This was a sneaky moving of goalposts. First you claimed consensus in the present thread, which obviously didn't exist. Then you toned it down to non-existence of consensus in the present discussion plus Mark Arsten's 'assessment' (what a great word for a single editor's opinion) "of the consensus of that discussion", where "that discussion" is sufficiently vague to refer to the present thread (though you can plausibly deny that you intended the confusion) or to Talk:Circumcision (which Mark Arsten meant but doesn't make sense mentioning in this way because he's just a single voice). Hans Adler 22:00, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Most of your comment is you ascribing motivations to my actions that just simply aren't true. I don't appreciate the ad hominems. My only position was that there never was conensus for adding the article-wide tag in the first place, and on Misplaced Pages if there isn't consensus to add something to an article, the default is to return the article to the status quo ante. My reading of Mark's statement was that his assessment as an outside administrator of the discussion was that there was not consensus for the tag. Mark's clarifying statement below confirms that he did indeed say what I thought he said. Any outside admin's assessment of consensus will always be "just a single voice" because any admin is only one person at a time. Other than that, I don't feel further discussion of this with you will be productive. Feel free to help yourself to the last word. Zad68 22:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

True, but the tag is removed after consensus is determined (e.g. An afd tag stays in place until the discussion is closed). Given that discussion at Misplaced Pages:NPOV/N#Circumcision is ongoing, the tag should be replaced. NE Ent 22:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Please could somebody explain which rule was invoked when deciding to unilaterally remove the NPOV tag? Despite reams of conversation on the matter above, I am yet to see which rule it was that overrode the "do not remove this tag.....". And whatever the rule is, it also raises the question that if the tag is subject to unilateral removal by one or two people who don't agree with it, before any debate has been had, what is the point in having the tag?  — Amakuru (talk) 17:35, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

The specific line that justifies its removal is It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:10, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

My view is that the issue is whether there's justification for adding the tag in the first place. Per the NPOV template instructions I've pointed out, plus the other comments here, there isn't. Zad68 18:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I asked you this before, I'll ask it again. How are you justified in removing a NPOV template from an article that has an on going NPOV discussion at the NPOV noticeboard THAT YOU AND Jmh649 ARE ACTIVELY PARTICIPATING IN? ScienceApe (talk) 21:06, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• To clarify my position above since I've been mentioned again, I believe there is currently a consensus about how to present the information at the circumcision page. Consensus is on the side of those who want the article to adhere to WP:MEDRS-best practices. Hans and ScienceApe found consensus against them, and want the article tagged to register their disapproval. This is improper--and it's not ADMINABUSE to point that out. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:08, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Utter nonsense, you made that remark only hours after I even made the NPOV discussion at NPOV noticeboard in the first place. The discussion is still ongoing. ScienceApe (talk) 21:04, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Unless someone can link to a diff where SA or Hans have stated they wish to tag to express disapproval, how can someone possibly know what they want? I thought the purpose of the tag was to attract discussion. If that's the case, what's the harm in letting the tag sit for a day or two? NE Ent 22:03, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

User:John Reaves has protected circumcision and prevented any user from adding the NPOV template to the article. When I questioned his wisdom in this, he flippantly responded as follows: Oops, I protected the wrong version. and That's the point. What is the issue here?. He added the protection despite the fact that no one had been making content changes to the article. He's abusing his admin powers to prevent anyone from adding a NPOV template to the article when there is an on-going NPOV discussion at NPOV noticeboard. ScienceApe (talk) 21:13, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Please be sure to notify John that you're involving him in this AN discussion, you may use {{subst:AN-notice}} to do so. Zad68 21:16, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Way ahead of you. ScienceApe (talk) 21:20, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Admins generally protect the current version of an article, it's nothing personal. Again, not ADMINABUSE!!!! Mark Arsten (talk) 21:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

He betrayed his motives with the remarks he made. ScienceApe (talk) 21:20, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

ScienceApe, have considered that your mind reading abilities may be of better use outside of Misplaced Pages? -- John Reaves 21:24, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

What the..?? John is an uninvolved admin who was patrolling WP:RFPP and responded to my request here. Zad68 21:26, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry. This is normal. Just accept that there is nothing we can do to move this article to NPOV. Misplaced Pages is dominated by American males, an incredible proportion of whom is circumcised, often not even for religious reasons. That comes on top of the self-selection bias from which the topic suffers anyway. And of course the technical medical literature, which is biased. The latter because in the US it is written by people who circumcise, and outside (at least in the languages accessible to me) it's not a big topic at all. Yet. Expect things to change once the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany have had their say on the recent legalisation of infant circumcision, which puts parents' religious freedom above their babies' right to physical integrity. They are not going to like this, but it will take many years for a case to reach them.

For some reason, the 'wrong version' on which an article is protected is almost always the non-fringe one when there is fringe POV pushing. That's fine. But for the same reason the 'wrong version' on which this article is protected will almost always be the more POV one. Not good, but it's no use trying to stop a river. Hans Adler 21:44, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Hans Adler adult white US Males have a very high proportion of circumcision, but religion is not generally the direct cause. Outside of the Jews and Muslims which may do so as a religious obligation, the rest are "medical". Now, one may certainly debate that that "medical" logic of "cleanliness" etc was influenced by morality several decades ago to try and reduce masturbation, but second level effects like that are difficult to trace. At the time of my birth (mid 70s) it was pretty much an automatic action by the doctors, without even notifying or asking the parents (which my European father was quite upset about). Now it is a much more deliberate decision. When my son was born they were very clear about asking if we wanted it or not, and providing (what I consider neutral) pro/con literature, including the common european POV of sensitivity loss and the information about minor protection from some cancers etc. My understanding is that rates are falling off dramatically, and in a generation I would expect the proportions to be quite different. My understanding is also that in the black community, the rates already dropped off 10-20 years ago. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:04, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Source discussion

So, as far as I am able to decipher, ScienceApe has provided no sources that justify the POV claim, discussion or tag, but plenty of charges of corrupt admins. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Read this and this and this, and then tell me with a straight face that the article properly reflects a global view on circumcision and covers all aspects of the topic with due weight. Hans Adler 23:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Belongs at the NPOV message board, or at the article talk page. Which is where the information was requested. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I already listed a long list of concerns over there under its own heading. Here is where you implicitly denied that they are there, by focusing only on ScienceApe. Maybe Jmh649's trick ("I could go through these one by one but we have already", followed by a comment that will cause severe digression if I respond) made you think they have been properly addressed already. Hans Adler 23:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I challenged you to maintain that the article is neutral after reading these 3 sources. Instead, over at NPOV/N, you claimed that the first source is in Dutch (it's in English), claimed that all three sources are too long to read, and asked a set of questions which you afterwards revised implicitly as a question for specific change proposals and fully cited opinions rather than quick summaries: "As suspected (got a long answer above with no proposed text, and no sources backing opinion)."

Stop this gaming. Hans Adler 00:13, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Asking WikiProject Medicine (and its members and enablers) to stop "gaming" is tantamount to shutting down their pet project. The only thing that's going to make an impact is starting an RfC or an arbcom case. The project is involved in so many concurrent controversies it would be an easy task. They have basically rewritten site-wide policies and guidelines to suit their own local agenda (WP:MEDRS) and they will attack and revert any editor who challenges them. While I can respect and understand their personalized battle against pseudoscience, they have taken to rallying the pitchforks and torches against anyone (and any source) who challenges the incessant stream of propaganda coming from the medical-pharmaceutical-industrial complex. This has devolved from a well intentioned, good faith effort to fight ignorance and pseudoscience into an organized jihad led by the priests of scientism that has crept into every aspect of the encyclopedia. Viriditas (talk) 01:48, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree that this case is ripe for ArbCom. petrarchan47tc 04:50, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree as well. ScienceApe (talk) 16:57, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd be interested too. --Nigelj (talk) 16:20, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

@Hans Adler: I am (still) attempting to understand what the dispute is, your long posts over there likewise gave no sources, and as the discussion there showed, ScienceApe has still not answered my question about the nature of the dispute backed by reliable sources. You supplied sources here, which forks the content discussion. The discussion there shows your sources have either been addressed or don't hold up. The discussion of the sources and content is still over there, where it belongs. The issue here is that there seem to be some conduct issues.

@ Viriditas, a similar situation with Cannabis, where you want to argue from primary sources, when there are scores of secondary sources available.

In both cases, if admins would read talk pages, they might address some troubling behaviors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:40, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I've done nothing of the kind, but once again, you keep making false accusations. You and your project have attempted to falsely portray cannabis as a dangerous drug that threatens mental and physiological health by manipulating and cherry picking poor and biased sources. That you folks are doing this across the encyclopedia in multiple topic areas appears to be the underlying complaint, but please, continue to try and deflect your attempts at skewing articles by blaming editors for "troubling behaviors". Viriditas (talk) 03:02, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

And again, a review of those talk pages will reveal who is "cherry picking" or using "biased sources". Um, since I started this section with my post, please do not remove my subhead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, a review of the sources indicates that you and the project are deliberately misusing them to push a POV. Like the claim that medical cannabis causes physiological disorders. I requested that source and reviewed it, and found nothing whatsoever supporting that claim. This is par for the course. You guys are pushing an agenda and misusing sources. And you are tag team reverting to promote your versions. Viriditas (talk) 03:29, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I believe I have access now to almost every source discussed; by all means, if someone has misrepresented a source, raise that on talk and I will provide quotes if I have the source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:36, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

This is the second time Viriditas has altered the section heading of the section I started; please stop.

I have made a third request for sources at the NPOV noticeboard. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:41, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Interesting summary. There is, btw, an edit pending on schizophrenia (that everyone agreed to on talk and RexxS summarized per multiple secondary reviews) that hasn't yet been made only because there was a troublesome (now blocked) editor on that page.

You might have more simply posted a reminder that the consensus edit hasn't yet been made; much more effective usually than walls of text, as we've discussed before. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:20, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• Here are before and after diffs for a few of the articles:

Current: Medical Cannabis > long-standing version (pre Project Medicine)

Current: Cannabis (drug) > long-standing version

Current: Effects of cannabis > long-standing version

Current: Long-term effects of cannabis > long-standing version petrarchan47tc 04:00, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I didn't work on these but at first glance the organization and sourcing were both much improved. I see old primary sources and quotes from individuals have been replaced with up to date secondary sources. The focus isn't on making sure negative things are said, but rather that the best quality sources are used and represented well. How did this turn into a general referendum on WP:MEDICINE anyway?? Zad68 04:34, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree this has got off-topic, but it worth looking at the "long-standing versions" of the cannabis articles being touted here for a scandalous example of Misplaced Pages at its very worst, delivering a massive payload of bogus health information to the unsuspecting reader (cannabis is known to treat brain cancer ... right). The claims made were supported - if at all - by very poor sources. Alexbrn 08:25, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Nope. The fact that people use cannabis to treat brain cancer is an incontrovertible fact. 40% of patients use cannabis or some other alternative treatment to treat their brain cancer. The anti-cancer effects of THC are well known, so that isn't in dispute. Whether cannabis actually works or not is an entirely different topic. Again, we see WikiProject Medicine confusing facts about how a drug is used (verified) with its efficacy (unknown, unproven). And the reason we don't have an answer is because 90% of cannabis studies amount to either a regurgitation of archaic anti-drug propaganda funded by the government, a solitary narrow focus on inconsequential negative effects (dude, where's my car?), or an inability to study the drug in depth due to research constraints imposed by governments. This is a solid historical fact verified in any reputable article or book about cannabis. Viriditas (talk) 11:58, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

What Misplaced Pages had was: "It is well established that the cannabinoids present in cannabis are effective treatments for gliomas". That you can't even acknowledge the problem pretty much says it all. Alexbrn 12:09, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I addressed exactly what you said in this discussion. I did not, however, address the subsequent strawman that you added after I addressed the discussion, which I will of course, address now. The statement, "It is well established that the cannabinoids present in cannabis are effective treatments for gliomas", appears to be based on the published literature and research performed by Complutense University of Madrid and GW Pharmaceuticals. What "problem" is it that I am supposed to acknowledge? Stop making shit up, please, and stop wasting my time with inane comments that go absolutely nowhere. "What Misplaced Pages had" has no bearing on this discussion. We are discussing the tag team revert warring behavior of WikiProject Medicine, not what some stoner added to an article. Viriditas (talk) 12:25, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

The fact that there is a 'fight' shows that not everyone has a neutral interest in MEDRS and adding information to the encyclopedia, as opposed to pruning articles into mere shrubs, as with Medical cannabis, then patrolling them so that only Project Medicine team members can participate without being reverted. Someone really interested in working on the page, and interested in MEDRS could add: "THC, the main active component of marijuana, induces human glioma cell death through stimulation of autophagy" JCI 37948. I gave the Project the benefit of the doubt at first, but do not see any indication this effort is really about building neutral encyclopedic articles. petrarchan47tc 21:30, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

... anybody adding that would be introducing misleading information through using a poor source (so would not have read and/or understood MEDRS). The implications of having this text in an article on the long-term effects of cannabis would amount to the most cavalier kind of OR. An editor would do better to heed MEDRS and use a high-quality secondary (review) source, say PMID 18088200, maybe quoting: "With regard to cannabinoids, at present, they have shown notable antitumor activity in different animal models of glioma, but their possible antitumor effects in patients have not been well established. The only human clinical trial on gliomas that has been conducted attempted to confirm whether THC has potential as a therapeutic agent . However, the results were inconclusive and did not outline in an unequivocal manner the real advantage of cannabinoid use." In other word, the medical reality as reported in reliable sources is 180° opposed to the statements made in the version of the article you seem so keen on. Alexbrn 22:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Your work on the Medical Cannabis page changed the hard work of multiple editors and spun it entirely: with two edits. One can find a wide array of cannabis studies to support a favoured conclusion, though mostly the conclusions state that causation is rarely found. Your team came in with an obvious anti-herb POV and found studies to prove it. "Supporters" can also find ample studies to support their POV. The previous versions of the articles needed a lot of work, but they did have the advantage of allowing the reader access to both sides of the issue. The studies and wording left behind after PM's hostile takeover shows a strong POV as well as a near-complete lack of knowledge about the subject. I brought in a cannabinoid researcher to help me look at the science, since I didn't see any experts working on the articles and since your team has experts in alopathic, rather than herbal medicine. However, I was told this was canvassing, and a banner is now at the top of cannabis talk pages warning folks who may have been asked to join the conversation. I noticed this paranoia is being used to literally ignore editors who question the cherry-picking. I truthfully expected your team to embrace the cannabinoid researcher and use him to help with your work. Instead, Sandy used my talk page to canvass for anti-Petrarchan47 editors, to initiate an RfC about me. Alexbrn has reverted me at every opportunity (except today, I might add, now that folks are watching).

The Project Medicine team decided to paste to the Lede remarks from a review even though the content was not covered in the body. The Lede went from this to this, and finally, because that wasn't negative enough, to this. I was reverted by Alex who said my MEDRS-supported claims about research were not supported by the body, whilst in the same edit, he left Project Medicine's version on the page, which was guilty of the same thing; there was no discussion of liver damage in the article, and indeed organ damage from cannabis is unheard of. Without a discussion of why cannabis affected those with Hep C, the reader is left with a deluded impression of the cause. (Science shows cannabinoids are protective of the liver. I asked for more understanding of this science from the biochemist and he states: "The article says generally that cannabinoids prevent and treat liver injury. The only exception mentioned is that of a heavy cannabis user with chronic hepatitis C. In this case cannabinoids may exacerbate liver fibrogenesis. An alternate explanation might be that cannabinoids could cause immunosuppression if CB2 activation is suppressed. So you could say that cannabinoids are protective of the liver except in the rare case of heavy cannabis use in a hepatitis C patient.") petrarchan47tc 23:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

All I am getting out of this discussion is that petrarchan47 has a significantly different view about sourcing. To pick one example, the editsummary of the second of the first two edits by Alexbrn that petrarchan47 cited says "replace a bunch of weakly sourced stuff with stuff sourced to two strong secondaries" and that's exactly what happened. Before it was sourced to a "News & Opinion" article in a magazine, a newspaper article, a popular press article in "The Inquisitr" (?) reporting on a single primary research study, and this primary research retrospective study. After Alexbrn's edit the content is sourced to this systematic review published in the journal of the Canadian Medical Association and this medical toxicology reference book by Donald G Barceloux. Barceloux has a lot of letters after his name: MD, AACT (American Academy of Clinical Toxicology), FACMT (Fellow of the American College of Medical Toxicology), FACEP (Fellow of the American College of Emergency Physicians) and is a well-published toxicologist, see these for example. The improvement in the sourcing in Alexbrn's edit is off the charts. If petrarchan47 is calling out this kind of edit as an example of the terrible things WP:MED project members are doing to articles, I don't even know what to say, we're not even on the same planet on this. Zad68 03:09, 10 January 2014 (UTC

Is that all you're getting? Did you miss the edits to the Lede about liver damage? You have missed my overarching point, so I will state it again: there is science all over the map with regard to cannabis. Therefore, those with a strong POV and a limited amount of research are likely to fall into a trap by showing which studies/claims they choose to highlight. I am not arguing that prior sourcing was appropriate or preferable, but that the MEDRS chosen to replace it, and the wording of the presentation, is very obviously cherry-picked and not a neutral, overall view of the topic. There was a lot of information thrown away in those reverts, some of it historic and widely considered an important part of the medical cannabis story. Also, editors wanting to fix this problem are being reverted regardless of having MEDRS to back them up. And this is being done by a team of influential, prolific and tightly-knit editors leaving ArbCom, in my mind, the only real solution. Ultimately, we are adults writing encyclopedia pages for adults. We should add more, not less, information about this topic, and work together to look at all the science, and come up with a good, balanced review of the research available. The team seems to attack pages about alternative medicine but I am not sure how much attention legal opioids and their consequences are receiving. petrarchan47tc 04:12, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• Another example of cherry-picking to arrive at the opposite conclusion as MEDRS: is here. In actuality, "The strongest evidence for the health benefits of medical marijuana or its derivatives involves the treatment of chronic neuropathic pain and the spasticity caused by multiple sclerosis." This statement from NYT can be substantiated by a quick search of PUBMED, like here and here and here.
• Project Medicine also claimed that people had died from shooting up hash oil, removing mention (Project Medicine version) that the cases of hash-oil deaths were in lab animals (pre-Project Medicine version), and apparently not fact-checking whether cannabis-oil junkies is a thing. Also, the confounding factor of oil in the bloodstream was overlooked in the desire to make the subject seem dangerous. petrarchan47tc 05:41, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
• Yet another. In this edit, Sandy removed a ton of information about the healing effects of cannabinoids, saying "we don't need this in two places", and leaving a link to the medical cannabis article which has only one sentence about the patent, saying simply that it exists (though prior to Project Medicine, it had its own section), thereby removing this information from the Pedia with a very misleading edit summary. petrarchan47tc 05:54, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

As we seem to have arrived at general grievances with WikiProject Medicine: While I can't speak on cannabis as I haven't made any research on that, I am under the impression that some influential people have seriously problematic blinders on. Perhaps more instructive due to the sheer absurdity and the absence of any plausible political motivation, is the project's reaction to a move from Epidemiology of teenage pregnancy to the neutral title Rates of teenage pregnancy.

Apparently, some editors really believe that terminological fashions among medical scientists trump NPOV concerns to the extent that it doesn't matter when we create the impression that teenage pregnancy is a health problem. (Child pregnancy is a health problem. Teenage pregnancy is only a social problem, and has only become one recently and only in the industrialised world.) See WT:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 31#Epidemiology of teenage pregnancy article moved to Rates of teenage pregnancy for that old discussion. Stonewalling and closing of ranks made it way too hard to come to the compromise title. Writing for the enemy is all well, but finding a compromise with a party that refuses to cooperate or accept obviously valid concerns requires way too much mind-reading to be practicable. Hans Adler 09:45, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

It's gone far beyond that point. The project works well as a group but when they run into any kind of resistance, they become tag team revert warriors for The Truth. WP:MEDRS is only a guideline formed by local project consensus, but they are using it to trump the site-wide policies and guidelines. They have unilaterally redefined the notion of a reliable source while at the same time, placing local restraints on how sources can be used and when they can't. Viriditas (talk) 12:04, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Except that WP:MEDRS is completely in line with WP:RS Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

So, the argument I'm seeing as to why removing the NPOV template was justified, is that its placement is merely a disruptive tactic used by a small minority of users who did not get their way in some previously held rigorous debate. Which I would certainly accept as valid if that debate had indeed been held, and if it could be shown that those users' concerns had been clearly shown (by WP:CONSENSUS, and by RFC/ArbCom if necessary) to have been quashed to the satisfaction of the community at large. Has such a debate been had in the case of the neutrality concerns on the circumcision article? If so, please could someone post a link to the final outcome? Conversely, if that final debate has not been had, I see no reason why the editors concerned should not be permitted to put the NPOV notice and allow the debate to be argued out per due process, and escalated up the dispute resolution process if no firm consensus can be reached.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:58, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

One of User:Hans Adler's concerns regarding neutrality as stated on Jan 8th, 2014 is "The more politically correct term male genital mutilation is never used or mentioned even once in the article". I asked for a reliable source to back this up a few hours latter and am still waiting for a reply. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:20, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Amakuru, I'm wondering how this "debate" will proceed if we can't get reliable sources to support POVs not given due weight in the article; I've requested them three times at the NPOV noticeboard. I believe it's right for debate to escalate when reliable sources have been presented; I'm concerned that an article can be tagged by participants who haven't yet presented a reliable source in response to my queries. In fact, I still don't know what the proposed additions are, missing text or underrepresented sources are, which makes it hard to present a solution. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:49, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

STOP STRAWMANNING THE PROBLEMS IDENTIFIED IN THE ARTICLE. I gave a response to your request, I have the same answer for you here. ScienceApe (talk) 16:55, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

ScienceApe, your mileage may vary, but one way of approaching POV disputes is to say, "Here is the content that is missing, misrepresented, not given due weight, whatever, and here is the reliable source upon which it is based". If you would do that, some of us might understand what it is you are disputing; in fact, we might even be able to address the concerns if we knew what they were. It would also help if you would remove all the discussions of different argument kinds, strawman, logical fallacy, etc from your posts, because whatever point it is that you want to make is being lost in your arguments about the arguments. For a discussion of POV to go anywhere, it needs to be based on sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Stop pontificating. Pointing out the logical fallacies that you, Zad, and Jmh have been making is to demonstrate that your rebuttals have no validity. SandyGeorgia is dishonestly and deliberately obfuscating the issue by strawmanning my arguments and trying to derail the discussion to chase a red herring. ScienceApe (talk) 20:08, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

To be honest, I think the problem might be on your end. Since a number of experienced editors are rejecting your arguments, I think you should consider the possibilities that you're not communicating your ideas well or you're not understanding the sources and guidelines as well as the editors with more experience in the subject. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:47, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

But the argument isn't over the removal of a well-supported placement of an article-wide tag, as there never was consensus to add it to start with. The argument is over whether there's support for the addition of the tag in the first place. It's for the reasons that Sandy points out that I feel the prerequisites (as documented at {{NPOV}}) to support the initial placement of the article-wide tag were never met. Otherwise—to elaborate on what Johnuniq pointed out above—any dedicated POV-pusher (in the general case) could slap an article-wide tag (or several of them) on as many articles as they wished and they'd all have to be there until that POV-pusher got bored with adding comments to the Talk page. We'd probably end up with multiple immovable article-wide tags on a majority of our most-read articles. In this case, as the stated goal of the tag is clearly being fulfilled, it simply isn't necessary to have it added. Zad68 14:15, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

If addition of the POV tag required a consensus, we might as well delete it, as it would only ever be applicable in those rare situations in which all factions agree it's a bad version, just not on how to fix it. (Or in this rare kind of situation.) Once it is on an article it can only be removed if (1) there is a consensus to remove it, or (2) it's obvious there will be such a consensus because there are no valid concerns.

You appear to be removing it based on something like (2), but the problem here is that you and Jmh649 (the editor signing as Doc James) appear to have a very biased view of which information is medical as opposed to political, sociological etc., and appear to have redefined the meaning of "reliable source" as things appearing in PUBMED, even for statements that are not medical claims. And consequently your assessment of what is or is not a valid POV concern is totally off.

A key fact that you guys seem unable to grasp: MEDRS applies, by necessity, to medical claims in all articles, not to all claims in medical articles. Same principle as for BLP. Initially MEDRS, just like BLP, was misleadingly formulated so as to imply otherwise. This was fixed by universal consensus after I brought the problem up in 2010, see WT:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)/Archive 3#Scope of this guideline. Hans Adler 18:28, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Indeed the team has taken ownership over what can be included in the cannabis articles even when the content had nothing to do with medical claims. Like here, where "sweeping claims" cannot be attributed to CNN (?). The claims seem 'sweeping' simply because the Project Medicine team has not done their homework. petrarchan47tc 23:46, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

But this edit by RexxS is totally reasonable isn't it: we don't source sweeping claims about a whole field of scientific research to an opinion piece broadcast on CNN by a TV doctor. (And by the way, this insistence on labeling unnamed editors merely as part of a 'team' is uncivil and shows a lack of good faith assumption.) As you have written elsewhere, you have built your own collection of 'not negative' material, and you are pointing to this in your comment above. This speaks of a problematic approach: we should not assemble and work from sources by filtering them on their their POV, but fairly represent the best possible sources whatever they say - the article will then automatically be neutral. Alexbrn 09:13, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that you and your team have placed yourselves in the position of determining what the 'best possible sources' are, and although I might bring MEDRS to the table, my sources are deemed no good, unnecessary, or not good enough. You've used sources to claim that cannabis hurts the liver, when the opposite is true; you've used MEDRS inaccurately to claim humans are injecting hash oil and dying from the cannabinoids; you've claimed 10-20% will become addicted, when the vast majority of MEDRS never mention a figure over 10%. You've claimed we can't quote Sanjay Gupta, because he is on TV!, but when I find MEDRS ("homework") that supports what he says about skewed research, my sources are problematic too. Your team schooled me on the need for the almighty MEDRS, but ignores the research I've collected and maligns me for having done the work. This is not about sourcing, it is about a POV plain and simple. Your team has introduced egregious errors and spin to the encyclopedia during your rework of the articles. I have asked Project Medicine to review what I saw as tendentious editing from Alex, and was ignored. I asked Sandy to look into it, and received the most acidic response any Wikipedian has ever given me. You defend each other to the end, and do not work as individuals so I have no inclination to address you as anything but a "team". petrarchan47tc 01:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

What I'm seeing here is evidence of a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and that WP:AGF will not be assumed by you for anyone you deem to be in this imaginary "team" (which seems to grow to include anyone with whom you disagree). I notice yesterday you were in such a hurry to attribute some edit you didn't like to this "team" that you launched an accusation invoking racism, even before actually bothering to read what had happened (hence the hurried retraction). This behaviour does not help the project. Alexbrn 08:59, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

The team includes Dr Jim, Sandy, you, and a few others who've helped out such as Anthony. You have the Project Medicine talk page where this team is given working orders, and where Sandy has gossiped and fear-mongered about me to anyone passing by. As an independent editor, it does feel as if a team or a gang descended on the articles. And it has been the case that only edits and wording approved by this team is allowed to stay on the pages - and no, this isn't an improvement in content, tone and overall even if it is an improvement in sourcing. As for the switch from "Cannabis" to "marijuana", the basis of the latter is in racism, and I pointed this fact out. Sandy was not happy when I corrected her use of "marijuana" at Medical Cannabis, so it was a bit surprising to hear we were on the same page this time. I erased my mistake quickly, but have had this rubbed in my face a few times anyway. petrarchan47tc 19:36, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, anybody left reading (pity the reader!) can draw their own conclusions from what you've written. Looks to me like an WP:AGF failure and WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, as I said above. Alexbrn 20:57, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• At this point I don't see how any additional comments here might be of benefit to Misplaced Pages--at least not comments from me. If any outside administrator monitoring this Administrators' Noticeboard still sees value in this thread, can explain what it is and needs my input in particular, please drop me a message on my User Talk. Thanks... Zad68 18:43, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Appeal by Alfonzo Green could use at least cursory participation from utterly uninvolved admins

This AE appeal is threatening to bog down under the weight of retreading the original case, on top of which we now have arguments that none of the admins who assessed the original case are "uninvolved" this time around. If we could get one or two admins who weren't at all involved the first time around to sort this out (if only to offer the opinion that reassessment by the original admins is OK), it would help to get resolved what I at least feel is turning into a trial by ordeal. Mangoe (talk) 13:06, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• Yes please Zad68 15:03, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

  Are there any specific policies there? Can an uninvolved administrator basically write anything (obviously not offensive etc) in the section for uninvolved administrators?--Ymblanter (talk) 15:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

  Yes, more specifically we're looking for a close. Evaluate the merits of appeal, and close with "appeal accepted, topic ban lifted" or "appeal declined, topic ban remains in place". Also take into account the notes from the comments in that section. Of course if you think the appeal need more discussion you're welcome to make that comment too and leave it open. Any admin can do this using their best judgment. Zad68 15:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

  I will have a look in a couple of hours if nobody beats me. (I am completely uninvolved and have never heard of this user).--Ymblanter (talk) 15:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

  That'd be perfect Ymblanter, thanks. Zad68 15:50, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

  I extended the discussion by two days, and I would welcome opinions of administrators who did not give their opinions during the original topic ban consideration. Whatever happens, I am going to close the case in two days from now.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:44, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

CFD backlog

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

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 November 8 has a couple of open discussions (which I have !voted in) - you know what to do... GiantSnowman 13:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Backlog notices on AN

@Salvidrim!:The header also says

"Issues appropriate for this page could include: General announcements, discussion of administration methods, ban proposals, block reviews, and backlog notices."

-- John Reaves 01:48, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I guess either of these need to be changed so that the directions are consistent. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 01:54, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with John on two points:

1. The backlog is atrocious. We've got discussions that are a month old with clear consensuses that are still open
2. AN is the proper place to mention it

pbp 02:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I think it might be helpful to link to a page with more information about backlogs. We occasionally get people posting "There's a terrible backlog! There are CSD candidates that are more than a few hours old! Aren't speedies supposed to be deleted within minutes of their tagging?!" A backlog of a few days at CFD is not a big deal; a backlog of a month is clearly undesirable. But the average user isn't going to know that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:27, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

IP Block exemption request

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

Could someone please comment on my request for an IP block exemption User talk:Slawekb. I'm getting the run-around on what should really be a very routine matter. (If my request is not routine, then an administrator needs to update the default edit notice that I see, since I've been following exactly the procedure outlined there.) Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't see a current request there. Nor do I see a history of unblock requests due to underlying IP blocks. I do see a semi-retired banner at the top. Am I missing something? ES&L 17:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) 2 editors in good standing have asked you to reveal what block you're being affected by. Per Misplaced Pages:IP block exemption not all editors or administrators can see why you might be cought in an IP block. They're trying to help you by looking for quick-fail reasons that you might be denied prior to going to checkuser. I consider this a reasonable request, but your refusal to reveal that information cause for not granting the exemption. Also how is this account Slawekb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) tied to Sławomir Biały (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and under what exemption are you claiming the ability to have multiple accounts? Hasteur (talk) 17:44, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

The accounts are fully disclosed and seem all kosher to me. The older account hasn't even been used in like 6 months. I don't think that is at all relevant to the current request. On the matter of the request itself, I have now commented there. Snowolf 17:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

The alternative account is fully disclosed, as snowolf indicates, for reasons specifically mentioned on my user page (essentially the diacritics make it typically easier to use the handle account). If I've violated any rules, I'm willing to be politely corrected on that point. :-) I will provide the IP information as requested, but I am bound to get caught in a similar dragnet again. This is all a bit of a hassle to put users who are in good standing through. Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:12, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

But IPBE is rare ... and only given based on a number of criteria. I don't see where you meet the criteria ES&L 18:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

You are currently unable to edit Misplaced Pages.

You are still able to view pages, but you are not currently able to edit, move, or create them.

Editing from (redacted) has been blocked (disabled) by DeltaQuad for the following reason(s): Misplaced Pages Checkuser.svg CheckUser evidence has determined that this IP address or network has been used (not necessarily by you) to disrupt Misplaced Pages. It has been blocked from editing to prevent further abuse. If you get this message, please read the following information. Misplaced Pages tries to be open, but we sometimes must block a range of IP addresses or an entire network, to prevent editing by abusers, vandals, or block evaders. These "range blocks" can affect users who have done nothing wrong. If you are a legitimate user, follow the instructions below to edit despite the block. Users who are the intended target of a range block may still appeal the block.

IP users (without an account): If you do not currently have a account and wish to bypass this block, an account can be created to allow you to edit. Please use this form to request an account under your preferred username. In general, these blocks only prevent users who are not logged in from editing; once you are logged in, the block will no longer affect you in any way. It is important that you use an e-mail address issued to you by your ISP, school, or organisation, so we may verify that you are a legitimate user. If using the form, please refer to this block under "comments". If e-mailing, please refer to this block in your message.

Registered users (with an account): You may request IP block exemption to bypass blocks unconnected with you that affect your editing. Post an unblock request to your user talk page.

Administrators: CheckUsers are privy to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not amend or remove this block without consulting a CheckUser. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

This block has been set to expire: 20:48, 23 February 2014.

Even if blocked, you will usually still be able to edit your user talk page and email other editors and administrators.

Now, if there is some secret special sauce to getting these things taken care of, the edit notice really needs to say so. As far as I can tell, I have followed the instructions there. (I also don't see anything at WP:IPBE that suggests that I would not qualify, as this precisely describes my situation.) So, if IPBE aren't handed out to editors in good standing who happen to edit from dynamic IPs that often happen to be blocked, then the procedure needs to be clear and easy how to get unblocked. (I don't really know the difference between the different types of blocks, btw. All I know is that when I log in to Misplaced Pages from home, I find myself unable to edit with the above edit notice.) Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Nobody is suggesting that you do not qualify for an IPBE, or that one may not be given. Only that it is given by checkusers after some research on their part, as no checkuser has commented as of yet, we can only defer to them. We merely offered alternative remedies for your previous situation that we, as administrators, could enact. Snowolf 19:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

That does seem the be ES&L's suggestion to me, but I'm willing to wait for a CU to comment. In any case, the edit notice should probably be updated. It feels based on responses here and on my talk page like Im asking for the moon. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:21, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm reviewing the case. Please, nobody grant IPBE until I check further. NativeForeigner 19:22, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I've archived this section just so that it's easier for people to notice that they shouldn't do anything right this moment. I'm not trying to shut off discussion; please keep discussing below the box, and feel free to add text inside the box as well — I just want to ensure that NativeForeigner's request remain at the bottom of the highlighted area. NativeForeigner, please un-archive it as soon as you're done checking further. Nyttend (talk) 22:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

PS — my edit changed the header, and Writ Keeper had to put it back. I couldn't remember the right code, so I went to another closed section, the one on Jmh649, and copy/pasted things here. I thought I'd removed the new header, Coffee's closing message, etc., but apparently I didn't get quite all of it. Nyttend (talk) 23:05, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Still pending, but won't be for much longer. NativeForeigner 02:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Granted, based on the fact he was behind a hardblock. NativeForeigner 17:40, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Old files missing permission

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

Hey all - quick and easy task. On December 31, I marked the following files for deletion as having no permission:

• File:Ultimaker's founder.jpg
• File:Ultimaker 2.jpg
• File:UltimakerOriginal.jpg

These files are taken from the official Ultimaker website, with no indication of them being freely licensed. 12 days later, the uploader of the images removed the deletion tags without providing any evidence of permission, which I just now noticed. If these files could be taken care of, that'd be great. Thanks, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 00:51, 15 January 2014 (UTC)}}

Community sanctions and block

• Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive825#Community_sanctions:_The_Rambling_Man.2C_Baseball_Bugs.2C_and_Medeis

I recently closed the above per the request at the WP:AN/RFC page.

User:Baseball_Bugs chose to evade the topic ban by posting to the reference desk talk page. And so subsequent to that I have blocked him for 24 hours for ban evasion.

I'm posting here for WP:3PO on both the close and the block.

As a quick note (I need to go deal with RL, but should be back in several hours), in my estimation, while option 1 clearly had overwhelming consensus, when readin the entire discussion, option 2 had consensus as well, though perhaps not as "overwhelming" as option 1. That doesn't make it any less "consensus".

Thank you for taking the time to look this over - jc37 20:08, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I had looked at the number of outright opposes on choice 2, and suggest that there was no actual "clear consensus" there - and that if one reduces the weight given to strongly involved editors (as best practice indicates), "no consensus" or even "no" is the result. One ought not give full weight to the involved editors, and the idea that an edit by Bugs questioning the close is the impetus for "instant block" is not altogether wise. Far better if you had another admin give a block, but since the only "bad edit" by Bugs was one questioning the "consensus" you saw, it looks like you let yourself get far too close to the issue. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:02, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• I am very confused by this. There is an overwhelming consensus for an interaction ban, whether counting all votes or only argued votes. Yet this is reported as a modest consensus. And the topic ban was strongly opposed, at least 2-to-1, whether one counts unargued votes, or votes with comments. This is clear from people opposing any sanctions as draconian and unwarranted, people supporting only sanction 1, and people outright opposing sanction 2. These votes all give reasons against sanction 2. User APL's vote is particularly instructional. With a cursory view, he supported all sanctions, then reversed his support for sanction 2 and commented on his reason for doing so. His crossing out his support for 2 may be unclear unless you enlarge the text and read the matter he appended to the end of his comment. μηδείς (talk) 21:15, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• Jc37, you're probably aware that your call of "consensus" for Option 2 (=that all three editors be topic banned from the Reference Desk) is not self-evidently clear. I'm not saying your call is wrong, but it's certainly debatable. What Baseball Bugs did, once you had notified him about your reading of consensus, was to object to your call concerning Option 2. He posted his objection in three places in rapid succession: on your page, on the Reference desk talkpage immediately below, and with reference to, your "Notice concerning community sanctions",, and on his own page. And for the post on the Reference desk talkpage you have blocked him for 24 hours, for violating his "Reference desk topic ban." I don't think that's a good block. If I'd been you, I'd have overlooked that particular post. I think Baseball Bugs should be unblocked right now, perhaps with a reminder to completely stay off the Reference desk and its talkpage until Jc37's reading of the consensus has been reviewed here.

I don't quite understand your summary of your finding about Option 2, "Has consensus (noting that indefinite is not interminable - especially as there is a criteria for appeal). What criterion for appeal is that? (No, I haven't re-read the entire thread, it's a monster, and really depressing.) Do you mean there's a venue for appeal of those topic bans? Where? It seems to me that BB did appeal his topic ban with his three posts, and that all three of them were in reasonable places for the purpose. Blocking him for using the RD talkpage for such a purpose seems bureaucratic to me. Any more cumbersome type of appeal (and, as I say, I don't even know where it ought to be posted, and perhaps BB doesn't either) would obviously be a bit pointless for a 24-hour block. Come on, unblock him, please. Bishonen | talk 21:24, 15 January 2014 (UTC).

Unblock pending review of close. NE Ent 21:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Ent, unblock pending review. BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 22:18, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

In response to what the last several people have said, I'll be unblocking momentarily, as Bugs didn't violate the ban's prohibitions of editing the Reference Desk or of interacting with the other two. When a topic ban is imposed, it either covers a specific set of pages ("You may not edit page A, page B, page C...") or prohibits the editor from editing pages on the topic and from discussing that topic elsewhere (e.g. "You may not edit anything related to the topic of weather"), aside from processes such as block/ban appeals; moreover, we always specify when someone's prohibited from discussing the ban itself. You closed as successful a proposal that they be "topic-banned from the Reference Desk, indefinitely"; the proposal said nothing about the RD talk page, and your closure included nothing additional. When people are banned from editing specific pages, they are not banned from editing those pages' talk unless the ban specifically says so. Nyttend (talk) 22:27, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

My intention proposing the community sanctions was RD and its talk pages, but if that was ambiguous I support a discussion to determine what people thought it meant. And, separately, I am also surprised by the option 2 consensus, though I think it was a good idea. We're sort of vague on how we "count" !votes when someone Supports 1 and says nothing explicitly about 2 and 3, for example. Are those assumed neutral on 2 and 3, or oppose on 2 and 3, or what? I have tended to assume conservatively (an implicit no). All of this said, as the proposer, I think others should be primary on the review. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:16, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I think its quite clear that a commenter who supports option #1 is implicitly saying that they do not support the other options - or else why mention only one of the options? Still, I'm glad my !vote said explicitly "Support #1 only", and I advise all commenters in all future !votes anywhere on Misplaced Pages to do the same, to avoid exactly this kind of thing. BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 00:36, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Following myself up, but... Thank you, Jc37 for having spent the time to review and close it. That was necessary and is much appreciated. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:23, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for unblocking. I will stay totally away from the ref desk until this case is fully settled. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:15, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• A few thoughts:
  • If there was consensus for Option 2, I really think it is clear that the talk page and all sub-pages of the RD are included, per very clear wording at WP:Topic ban. I don't think a whole new discussion is needed to arrive at that fact.
  • The thing is, I have a very hard time seeing a consensus for Option 2. Well, no, that's too gently worded. I do not think there was a consensus for Option 2. I cringe at the idea of yet another discussion about this (the equivalent, I guess, of a DRV), so I'd ask @Jc37:, please review the comments in the archived ANI discussion and consider changing the close for Option 2. Otherwise, I feel a DRV-ish discussion somewhere (here, I suppose) would be reasonable.
  • I despise myself already for saying this, and will surely burn in CREEP hell for it, but... instead of relying on common sense, we should probably come up with some kind of standard way for someone subject to a topic ban or interaction ban to (a) appeal the ban, and (b) report a violation of the interaction ban by the other party. I already see TRM flirting with a violation on his user page, and BB's complaint about that is being reverted as a violation of the IB as well.

--Floquenbeam (talk) 00:20, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

We got that (appeals; appeals go here WP:AN or WP:AC. NE Ent 03:58, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for unblocking, Nyttend. I suppose it does need to be clarified whether or not people thought it was GWH's intent to include the RD talkpage in the topic ban. (Groan… these discussions get more fine-drawn and labyrinthine by the day. Yes, you will burn in CREEP hell, Floquenbeam.) But I don't think it matters as far as the 24-hour block of Bugs is concerned. For my part, I assumed that Jc37's topic ban did cover the RD talkpage, but thought the block was bad all the same. See my post above. Collect's comment seems very reasonable to me, though I will surely burn in letting-the-side-down hell for saying such a thing. Bishonen | talk 00:48, 16 January 2014 (UTC).

• jc37's declaration of the ban wasn't very good; the closing admin should make a clear, explicit statement of the terms and scope of the ban on the user's talk page, not a reference to "#2" on that page. Bureaucracy no, clarity yes. NE Ent 03:58, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

• I would like to think consensus requires a sort of quorum where a certain portion of those weighing in have to weigh in on a specific issue in question for there to be any valid determination of consensus on that issue. Here you did not have a decent quorum to justify any finding of consensus with regards to the topic ban. When so few people commenting on a series of proposed sanctions mention a specific one, their silence should be considered a strong sign of a sanction not having sufficient support to pass. Even then, I feel there was more than enough opposition to the sanction expressed that any finding of consensus for the sanction would be completely nonsensical. Clearly the interaction ban had consensus, but that is the only consensus for a sanction I saw in that discussion.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:04, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, rather than get lost in the threading above, I'll try to respond here. I'm hoping to avoid tl;dr, but we'll see : )

First thank you to those of you who did WP:AGF, and were requesting clarification.

I've responded to Medeis's request for clarification on their talk page, and I think it should answer much of what I see above concerning the closure. And as for the block, please see User talk:Nyttend#Note about unblock.

That said, I think I should reiterate something: When saying something has consensus, I was presuming that all would understand that that means that it has consensus to be enacted. I am rather surprised that it is suggested that could be interpreted in any other way and thus engender actual confusion. And second, I'd like to respectfully request that you each please re-read WP:BAN. The policy and practices you're looking for are there as far as I can tell. I wasn't aware that I needed to re-summarise WP:BAN in a close, but I'll think about considering that in the future.

And finally, to try to be as clear as possible. If some truly uninvolved editor feels that they now wish to close the discussion, please feel free. You (completely uninvolved editor) are welcome to revert the close partially, fully, or fabricate completely out of whole cloth. One of the benefits of being uninvolved, is that I really don't care that much. My care is only concerning the encyclopedia in this case. And I daresay none would argue that the was not consensus that what the commenters clearly saw as disruption at the reference desk pages needed to stop. But who knows, I also thought that the rest of the close was fairly obvious. And in that at least I was apparently mistaken, if only having that impression from reading the above. - jc37 07:10, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I think from looking at the discussion (and noting I was involved), that saying there was a consensus for option #2 was what Sir Humphrey might have described as a "courageous" decision. With that said, Baseball Bugs' raising the stakes by posting on the ref desk talkpage concerning the ban, when there are plenty of less drama-prone ways to do it, was certainly not a smooth move either. Vigourous troutings all around are called for, I think. Lankiveil 11:15, 16 January 2014 (UTC).

• So, how do we--how do I--proceed on this? I think it's clear from the comments above that a finding of consensus for option two is unsupported. Jc37 has explained that he did not take into account votes that supported only option one as implicitly opposing option 2. But even then, and looking only at votes where justifying comments were given, the total of votes opposed to any sanctions: 6 and votes opposed to sanction two or in favor of only sanction one: 11 far outweigh the total of votes in favor of sanction two: 8.

Again, I would draw attention to comments such as APL's "(Edit: Looking more closely, I notice that Medeis makes a significant number of apparently useful contributions to the Language desk. So I've struck my support for #2.) APL (talk)" in response to Doc9871's suggestion that criticisms should be based on diffs.

Indeed, the lack of rationale for sanction two and evidence to back it up is striking. There's the question of what harm this topic ban prevents. The ref desk is mentioned here only because it was the venue of TRM's name-calling disputes with me and Bugs. An interaction ban solves that problem. A topic ban seems only punitive in this context.

At this point I feel like a defendant left sitting at the bench while the judge and lawyers are out chatting in the hall. I ask that if someone here has the ability to reverse the judgment of consensus on sanction two in regards to not only myself, but Bugs and The Rambling Man as well, that they please do so. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 19:34, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Replaceable non-free use Misplaced Pages files

There is a backlog at Category:Replaceable non-free use Misplaced Pages files going back to last September.--Rockfang (talk) 18:05, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Administrative backlog