Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:38, 10 July 2015

• 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 366 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

• WP:CR
• WP:RFCL
• WP:ANRFC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other areas tracking old discussions

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

Administrative discussions

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

(Initiated 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 85 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

Closure Review

This is a request to review the close at Talk:Grand_Theft_Auto_V#Merger_proposal to determine whether the closer interpreted the consensus incorrectly. I discussed this with the closer at User_talk:SNUGGUMS#Closure_Of_Merger_Discussion.

The closure appears to have been made based on the opinion of the editor that closed it rather than the actual consensus. As I said when talking to the editor that closed it, I am aware that consensus is not determined simply by counting heads but there are significantly more editors in support of the merger than against it, and neither side cited any rules. Mainline421 (talk) 11:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Overturn and merge as per consensus - and I will tell you for why: The closer concentrated mainly on sourcing/notability of the re-release, however that was addressed clearly by the support voters. Demonstrated notability means that a subject *can* have its own article, not that it *should* have one. In this case the support merge group clearly demonstrated that a re-release of the game for a later console can easily be incorporated into the original article. Its just not that different a product *its the same game*. There are differences but if we had different articles for re-releases of all media.... At best it merits two paragraphs with a list of the major changes and its reception. Secondly a number of the oppose votes are along the lines of 'otherstuffexists' which is not a valid reason for not merging. Lots of other stuff exists. Often those articles have their own reasons, or often, no one has got around to propose merging/deleting them. On the whole, the support merge group had both stronger arguments and none that are against policy. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:57, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

ANI is not the place for this. As I previously stated, the closure isn't something I made based on my own opinion. If you look again, another editor did cite that the re-release meets WP:GNG, and WP:Article size was also brought up (even if indirectly). Snuggums (talk / edits) 12:55, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

According to Misplaced Pages:Closing discussions#Challenging other closures this is exactly the place to bring a challenge, I'm not making an opinion on the close but just pointing that out. Kharkiv07 (T) 13:20, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Snuggums, as a general rule, whenever someone makes a claim like "ANI is not the place for this", they should specify where they think the right place is. Misplaced Pages:Closing discussions#Challenging other closures says "If you are unable to resolve the issue through discussion with the closer, you may request review at the Administrators' Noticeboard". I am also a bit uncomfortable with the claim you made at User_talk:SNUGGUMS#Closure_Of_Merger_Discussion that "one compelling reason can override multiple weaker reasons". While technically true, and often invoked when there are a lot of "I llke it/don't like it" !votes, in this case it appears that those who opposed the merge were well aware of the "compelling reason" and did not find it compelling, even if you did. In such cases the opinion of the majority should not be disregarded. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:45, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• I'd endorse that, because the only real alternative is "overturn to no consensus", and "no consensus" means the status quo ante should continue, so it has exactly the same effect as endorsing the close. I can't see any way to get to "overturn to merge" based on that discussion.—S Marshall T/C 23:58, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• Overturn and merge. I don't see how anyone could read any other consensus into it. Seemed simple enough even to my addled admin brain. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:03, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
• {{Do not archive until}} added. Please remove the {{Do not archive until}} tag after the review is closed. (I am adding this because RfC closure reviews frequently have been archived prematurely without being resolved.) Cunard (talk) 02:35, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Use of statistics on responding editors to try and sway a RFC

I am unable top find a policy or guideline that specifically addresses the behaviour in this section of a contentious RFC . The closest thing I can find is here and it does not appear to be consistent with this intent. Another editor has tried to hat the section only to have it removed.. I am not 100% sure this is the best place to bring this, so if another board is more appropriate please direct me to it. Thanks AlbinoFerret 00:32, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Getting uninvolved opinions (as well as involved ones) is one of the points of a RFC, and helping identify who might count as "involved" in a discussion is common, though less commonly with this rigor. It's odd, but why is it wrong? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:12, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

It appears to be skewed in a number of ways, statistics can be formed to say whatever the person creating the way data is presented wants it to. It only counts edits to talk pages. The terms searched for are chosen by one person. Those terms were pages outside of the one the RFC is addressing. The comparison is to total talk page posts, so someone who posts a lot can have a large involvement but be counted as uninvolved. This is also not geared towards consensus building as the RFC page recommends, but to exclusion. That it is being done by someone very involved in the RFC is another problem. Lastly, it may sway late comers to the RFC to jump to whatever side they think is "winning" by these statistics. I think the whole uninvolved section should be hatted as inappropriate for an RFC, and it has been, but the person who created the skewed information reverted it. AlbinoFerret 02:05, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

It's wrong because the one doing the calculation is an involved editor and it is a non-neutral approach with skewed results. I'm sure the opposition could have managed something equally as skewed but that wouldn't be the right thing to do. The stats should have been hatted and stayed that way. Bias, inadvertent or not, is still bias and it effects neutrality. Atsme 02:28, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

As another involved editor: correct me if I'm wrong, but the conclusion you seem to be inviting people to draw is that Kingofaces manipulated the statistics deliberately (and unethically) to give their "desired" result. Is that the intention? Sunrise (talk) 03:50, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Its not hard to draw that conclusion because of the choice of how the data was designed and is presented, but it is possible it may not have been a conscious act. Editors with more than 50 posts on the subject that oppose are more likely to be "involved" whereas its the opposite for uninvolved. Favoring the presenters desired outcome. In fact one editor with 220 posts on the subject is in the uninvolved sections. This is not a complaint on my personal designation, its uninvolved. But the skewed presentation, because the presenter chose not to look at posts but percent of posts, from a editor that is involved in the RFC is inappropriate in any case. As the person bringing this here, all I am looking for is this be hatted with a "inappropriate" label and a warning not to remove the hat. AlbinoFerret 12:34, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay, so you're suggesting that good faith is unlikely on their part. In that case, I suggest making it explicit and providing evidence.

Also, are you aware that reordering the table based on number of posts leads to the same conclusion? You can easily verify this for yourself in a couple of minutes - the greatest amount of support came from the editors who were least involved. I would certainly object if it was solely a votecount, but it's more than that (and even votecounts don't typically get hatted in any case). Sunrise (talk) 22:48, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This would probably have been better brought up at ANI or WT:RFC because the discussion doesn't affect administrators. Since we're here... I'm not seeing a problem with the table. The table doesn't violate policy and the closer doesn't have to use it. It may be useful to know who hasn't commented much on the issue in that and related articles when determining what the broader community thinks. If so, the table provides a single clearly-defined method for determining who is in that broader community. That there are other ways of determining the data doesn't make the table wrong or biased. What matters is that the method for creating it is clearly-defined: that way, all entries can be compared to each other, and the closer can decide whether the table is of use to them based on the criteria for inclusion in the table. The existence of the table is also unlikely to sway RfC respondents any more than the survey and discussion will; the possibility of people being swayed is always present when votes (or !votes) are public. Full disclosure: I !voted in the RfC. Ca2james (talk) 04:33, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I see various editors are attempting to kick up drama here now that have been involved in the RfC. I explained rather transparently how I gathered those numbers, and anyone can use the edit contribution tools to verify that . Instead we have various editors slinging around accusations. The only intent was to provide the two different sets of numbers showing involvement for the closer to use however they see fit and not for any RfC respondents (including myself) to make any interpretations themselves. The methodology itself is neutral and picks up on involvement in the general related topics regardless of support/oppose votes at the RfC. If someone is trying to say I skewed those results somehow, we'd see a much less even number of heavily involved editors on either side that show up in that first summary table (which I'm included in even). I went out of my way to make sure the process was extremely even handed to all editors involved. Obviously some people are not happy with the results, but that's what they show. The rest of the conversation that has occurred there should dismiss that various aspersions editors above are making about me on what I actually did: .

I'm seeing no policy violations in my post as there is no uncivility in simply listing the numbers, and everything was done in good faith. As RfCs are intended to mainly bring in uninvolved editors in addition to those already involved, it's very difficult to figure out who's who in larger RfCs like this. That's especially the case when involved editors tend to dominate the conversation. This was a good-faith attempt to follow the spirit of WP:RFC. Looking at the various comments in the subsection at the RfC, I'm getting the feeling a few editors are looking for insults or something nefarious rather seeing what is was intended as. I'd be fine with someone uninvolved simply closing the section rather than hatting if it continues to be a such distraction and source of wild speculation for other editors (oddly those who would appear to be heavily involved from the support side don't have issues with their involvement shown). In the end, it was only meant to be a tidbit for the closer in addition to everything else that is considered in an RfC. Either way, I for one intend to enjoy my 4th of July weekend largely away from the computer. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:01, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

The issue with the analysis is not incivility. The primary issues are (1)the focus on edit counts/contributors rather than content, (2) the sidetracking of an already lengthy discussion into meta-discussion without clear justification. Such a section is inherently a distraction and hatting it was appropriate. There may be issues with the methodology; even if the methodology is totally transparent, the primary problems with such a table stand.Dialectric (talk) 16:02, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

^I agree 100%. Will comment further. David Tornheim (talk) 21:13, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Once again Tsavage said it well:

By the fact of it being posted, it is intended to influence the RfC outcome. And as I pointed out, it is not raw data, it is your novel construction, beginning with your selection of which articles to categorize as GMO-related (what was the set of keywords you used to identify GM articles?) to arrive at your GMO-related percentage. Meanwhile, "uninvolved editors" simply means fresh eyes to the discussion, it doesn't invalidate or devalue any other editors' comments: in principle, at least, it's all about the substance of the discussion.

And regarding the discussion, it focuses on a pro-GMO interpretation (SYNTH/OR) of the science on GM food safety and a supposed scientific consensus. What is disturbing is that after much examination, the sources that have been used to support this statement across many GM-related articles on WP for a number of years, turn out not support the claim at all. After throwing out advocacy sources, not only did no RS claim a SC exists, but the RS cited (like the WHO) was misrepresented. It is disturbing that any editor(s) would be more interested in constructing or defending this chart than in addressing this serious problem and signs of advocacy editing in biotech-related articles as evidenced by the RfC. petrarchan47คุก 21:08, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

^also Agree, and especially with the quote from Tsavage David Tornheim (talk) 21:16, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

• Above Kingofaces43 says:

The only intent was to provide the two different sets of numbers showing involvement for the closer to use however they see fit and not for any RfC respondents (including myself) to make any interpretations themselves.

But if you look at the introduction it is clear he has indeed interpreted the results in such a way to try to bolster his position (support):

At this time of posting, we have 20 supports and 14 opposes overall, but when you look at the number of edits under 10% (where I start to see names I don't really ever see here at least), we end up with 65% supporting and 35% opposing as far as definite responses go.

The creation and use of the table is not neutral as he is claiming. There can be no question he is attempting to skew the iVote interpretation of the RfC, to show a 2:1 super-majority (65%) support of iVotes (by arbitrarily excluding "involved" editors), rather the slight majority 59% considering all iVotes. What's worse, many of the people identified as involved are not involved as I proved at the section here. To suggest editors such as GrayDuck156 here, 66.169.76.198 here, Tsavage here, TypingAway here are more "involved" in GMO articles than Jytdog here is ludicrous (which can be easily verified by clicking the links I provided here). What is strange is that he says that "but when you look at the number of edits under 10% (where I start to see names I don't really ever see here at least)". That is hard to believe, since the editors I have named as less involved than Jytdog have not participated in any way in the GMO articles until only very recently at about the time this RfC was created. The table is bogus and misrepresents the concept of "involvement" and I think the section should be hatted. David Tornheim (talk) 21:50, 3 July 2015 (UTC) (minor revisions David Tornheim (talk) 22:07, 3 July 2015 (UTC))

and... i am not complaining. This thread is dramah. Jytdog (talk) 21:59, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

We are all grownups here and we all know that statistics or their interpretation can be manipulated/stated in very subtle ways to bias thoughts and therefore !voting. ("Lies, damn lies and statistics") This table and it's discussion should be hatted to avoid such a possibility. I did this, and the hat was reverted by the creator for the second time, without justification (is unhatting by an involved editor allowed?) I am sure we can trust that the closer will also be a grown up and will deal with the matter according to the strength of arguments, rather than a table of statistics (even though this may or may not be considered). However, in the mean-time, it should be hatted to avoid biasing non-involved editors.DrChrissy 23:21, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

David, you're now fabricating ideas about what I intended (i.e., creating strawmen to misrepresent someone). I already stated that an editor like TypingAway would not fall into the same grouping as someone like me or you in terms of involvement. That's only how the numbers turn out. There's more to consider than just looking at the table blindly. Again, please don't misrepresent me when I've already addressed a certain point. Doing so only creates drama. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:18, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

• I can't be bothered to read this, does anyone have aTL;DR version? From the names I assume an RFC went against the narrative of GMOs as the Antichrist, and the usual suspects don't like it? Guy (Help!) 23:31, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  • It seems rather unusual (irresponsible perhaps?) behaviour of a user to admit they have not read a thread, but then to post their opinion of it. How would this posting be included in the disputed table of statistics I wonder?DrChrissy 23:40, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

There you go again reading incorrectly between the lines. I didn't venture an opinion, I stated my assumption. If it's more than that then I hope another admin will post a short, neutral summary (the original request is neither short nor neutral). Anti-GMO activists view Misplaced Pages as the front line in their battle to influence popular opinion against the current scientific consensus, and this sometimes requires admin action, whereas the usual kvetching by the usual suspects usually does not. Guy (Help!) 16:32, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

@User talk:JzG"There you go again reading incorrectly between the lines." Please provide diffs to support this accusation.DrChrissy 19:26, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I repeat - @User talk:JzG"There you go again reading incorrectly between the lines." Please provide diffs to support this accusation or consider striking your personal attack.DrChrissy 19:16, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I'll just chime in Guy and say the RfC hasn't been closed yet. What you see here is just the result of my posting a table showing the how much each editor in the RfC has posted in the general topic to help the closer tease out who's generally uninvolved vs. someone who's pretty entrenched in the topic in some way since it's tough to determine who's an uninvolved editor in a large RfC. Many of the above editors ran with that table well beyond what I intended it for and are kicking up drama trying to claim many things I never intended. If I really was going to try to interpret who's involved if I was a closer, I do see some really interesting trends, but I'm not commenting on my thoughts at the RfC for obvious reasons. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:18, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I think it's pretty obvious who's who, from the comments they make, but whatever. I do hope nobody relied on the infamous Séralini paper: Guy (Help!) 18:04, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Guy, here is a relatively neutral summary of what is being discussed: Kingofaces43 recently posted a set of tables which he created to Talk:Genetically modified food; the tables cover each editor voting in the current rfc on the 'consensus' statement used in the genetically modified food article. The goal of the posting was apparently to quantify 'editor involvement' in the area of gmo's.The discussion here should focus on Kingofaces43's conduct and whether such tables are appropriate for an article talk page/rfc discussion. This noticeboard posting is not about sourcing, Séralini, or a disputed rfc closure. The rfc is still open with a number of votes and policy-based arguments from both sides.Dialectric (talk) 18:29, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

If I were closing that RfC (which I would not of course) I would simply ignore that table. I am old and wise enough to check contribution histories for myself, and also to read the arguments based on weight of policy-based support. I suspect that whoever does close it will be of much the same bent. It would be silly to act surprised when a discussion on GMOs becomes heated and is dominated by the usual suspects. Our articles on GMOs have been a battleground for a long time, largely because the anti-GMO brigade are by now fighting a losing battle in the real world, with GMOs being increasingly mainstream and the apocalyptic predictions of the early days failing to materialise. Science is moving away from their viewpoint, which is why crap studies like the Séralini become the focus of such bitter dispute. Like homeopathy, only worse because a few scientifically literate people still believe anti-GMO tropes. Guy (Help!) 19:25, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

• In a nutshell, when an editor breaks in the middle of an RFC to do an analysis of the other people participating, this is offtopic. Tagging SPA is one thing, but breaking down a chart with percentages of participation, etc. is a method of trying to convince the closer to discount or consider votes based on something besides the merits. Graham's hierarchy of disagreement covers this well as one of the lower forms of argument, as you are speaking about the editors, not the merits. Whether the charts was right or wrong, had I participated, I would have hatted it myself as it has no bearing on merits and is cluttering up an already long RFC. If I were closing, I would not have considered it and done my own homework. It isn't sanctionable, but it is improper, thus hatting is reasonable. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:46, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Edit filter request

Is there not an edit filter flagging variants of profanities somewhere? seems like it would be an obvious candidate for ... something. Obviously, there are legitimate profanities in articles, but puerile vandalism like this seems like it would be relatively easy for a bot to auto-revert or an edit filter to flag. --B (talk) 18:27, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

• It would seem basic enough to have a filter disallowing edits where any regex variant of "bitches" and "money" are in the same edit. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Pedigree Alsatian bitches can sell for a lot of money. DuncanHill (talk) 23:40, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

• That might be too specific to be very useful often ... and it's possible that there would be a legitimate edit (say, quoting lyrics from a piece of rap). But a profanity filter that simply flags the edit for review where someone going down the list could check would be very useful ... and I'm assuming that there's a small enough amount of legitimate profanity in articles that the filter wouldn't take an excessively long amount of time to review. --B (talk) 19:45, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
• There's Special:AbuseFilter/285 which flags some common swear words added by non-autoconfirmed editors. There's also Special:AbuseFilter/380 and Special:AbuseFilter/384 doing similar. Sam Walton (talk) 21:49, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

• I semi-protected it. There are too many possible variant, such that you would get false positives at times. SP seems the better choice since this has actually been going on a while there. Dennis Brown - 2¢ — Preceding undated comment added 20:25, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

• People often add asterisked "fuck", "cunt", etc. as vandalism, and it seems that they always asterisk out the vowel; it's never "fu*k" or "cun*", for example. Is it practical to add those to the filter? I don't know if it's possible, since of course we would want the software to interpret the asterisk as an asterisk instead of as a wildcard. Nyttend (talk) 23:28, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

It would be possible to do a RegEx filter for stuff, but impractical I think. Honestly I don't think we need such a filter beyond what we already have. Just template the trolls and report anything egregious to AIV. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:00, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Living bio Rick Ross (consultant) edit requests ignored

I have repeatedly asked for an edit regarding the selective and misleading editing done concerning my criminal record 1974-1983. It has been ignored. I have repeatedly offered to meet whatever official document requirements might be asked and linked to PDF online court records. All of this has been ignored and the request for edit remains unanswered. Rick Alan Ross96.235.133.43 (talk) 11:38, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Administrative backlog