Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sergecross73 (talk | contribs) at 14:39, 12 August 2014 (→Excessive topic-ban). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

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

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

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

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

Template:Active editnotice

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

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

Archives

Index no archives yet (create)

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

• WP:CR
• WP:RFCL
• WP:ANRFC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other areas tracking old discussions

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

Administrative discussions

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

(Initiated 40 days ago on 13 December 2024) challenge of close at AN was archived nableezy - 05:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading

Requests for comment

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/In the news criteria amendments

(Initiated 107 days ago on 7 October 2024) Tough one, died down, will expire tomorrow. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Deletion discussions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Initiated 16 days ago on 6 January 2025) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 9#Category:Molossia Wikipedians

(Initiated 13 days ago on 9 January 2025) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 13#Redundant WP:COMICS categories

(Initiated 9 days ago on 13 January 2025) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 08:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

 Closed by editor Timrollpickering. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.  14:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 15#Redundant WP:RUSSIA categories

(Initiated 8 days ago on 15 January 2025) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:24, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Free and open-source software#Proposed merge of Open-source software and Free software into Free and open-source software

(Initiated 250 days ago on 17 May 2024) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Talk:Free and open-source software § Proposed merge of Open-source software and Free software into Free and open-source software? Thank you. — Newslinger talk 01:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Arab migrations to the Levant#Merger Proposal

(Initiated 120 days ago on 25 September 2024) Open for a while, requesting uninvolved closure. Andre🚐 22:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Winter fuel payment abolition backlash#Merge proposal

(Initiated 86 days ago on 29 October 2024) There are voices on both sides (ie it is not uncontroversial) so a non-involved editor is needed to evaluate consensus and close this. Thanks. PamD 09:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talk:Donald Trump#Proposal to supersede consensus #50

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

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

Talk:Xiaohongshu#Requested move 14 January 2025

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

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

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

User:Homeontherange

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

I blocked Homeontherange (talk · contribs) this morning for pointy tag-bombing on today's featured article. In subsequent conversation he revealed that he was a vanished user since 2006 who wishes to un-vanish. He was involved in arbitration, sockpuppeting and drama in that time, and his conduct this morning is hardly irreproachable. Dawn Raider 6 (talk · contribs) was checkuser-blocked as recently as last October. However, he has requested that the possibility of his return be brought up here. I can't find any active sanctions on his primary account, but the history is convoluted. More discussion and context is available on his talkpage. Acroterion (talk) 18:11, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

• Regardless of if he comes back on his previous account or not, sanctions - including your block - are on the person and not the account so whichever account it is will need to fulfill your block.--v/r - TP 18:18, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I've received a satisfactory apology for the activity that led to my block, which is in any case for 24 hours. What is not clear to me is whether, as you note, the person behind the account is actually under any standing sanction. Acroterion (talk) 18:26, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
    • This was before my time, so I don't really know how the ban process worked in 2006, but based on the AN/I discussion it appears this was a defacto ban rather then a formal community ban enacted at the close of a discussion as is now common practice. As best as I can find, there is no Arbcom ban or sanction outstanding. Is that correct? @FloNight: @SlimVirgin: Pinging a couple current admins who were active in that discussion. Monty₈₄₅ 19:21, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
      • They've also mentioned @Fred Bauder:. Acroterion (talk) 19:41, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
• I'm not impressed by the recent conduct, beyond already getting blocked for an incident with the Featured article, I first noticed this editor at DRV where they claimed Dating Reality and Things not only passed CSD A7, but meets the notability criteria, which I just can't AGF on, its too absurd. Monty₈₄₅ 19:26, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

The community ban was a very long time ago. I suggest that the current conduct of the user should be the main way to evaluate whether any editing restrictions are needed now. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 20:36, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Homeontherange's userpage notes that he was previously Formeruser-82, which according to this diff (I just picked a random talkpage edit from that account's contribution history) was previously named AndyL. After the username change, the Andy userpage redirected to the Homeontherange userpage for a time before Homeontherange deleted it in January 2006, but Zanimum soon recreated it as a redirect with the rationale "it's important to have a page here, as this is one of the top 100 accounts on the project". It was later re-deleted because of RTV. Fast forward to today, and you'll see that Homeontherange requested unblock; I've "accepted" the request to get it out of the unblock category, since it expired without anyone acting on it. Nyttend (talk) 12:11, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Well this should be interesting; if memory serves, this is the original author of the rather wiki-infamous Israel and the apartheid analogy article. Tarc (talk) 12:33, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

• I have reblocked Homeontherange. In the 3 hours since the last block expired, he has edit warred , violated WP:3rr , violated WP:NPA and resumed tag bombing articles, resulting a report to WP:AIV. Feel free to review my block while we are here. Monty₈₄₅ 14:49, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

It's clear that yesterday morning wasn't a one-off, and that some very convincing explaining must happen before they can be unblocked, which would have to be done through a consensus on this page. Acroterion (talk) 14:58, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

• Maybe the original Homeontherange would be allowed to un-vanish, but this looks like an impostor, and probably the same user as Dawn Raider 6 and others in the sockpuppet category (with the exception of Toronto8793, who appears to be a false positive). I mentioned this when those accounts were blocked, at User talk:AGK/Archive/78. The global account of Homeontherange is blocked on several wikis, including the Simple English Misplaced Pages where the user claimed to have used Litherlandsand as a sockpuppet on en.wikipedia; several accounts including Litherlandsand and Samllaws300 (who also claimed to be the original Homeontherange) were confirmed to be sockpuppets of Sunholm, a vandal who was blocked in 2006. Contributions from the new account are similar to Sunholm and related accounts (particularly Samllaws300), not to the vanished user. Peter James (talk) 22:06, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Ban Proposal: CensoredScribe

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

CensoredScribe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s name has come up several times here and on ANI. He was restricted to only adding categories that were met with consensus at CFD or at another appropriate venue due to his disruptive editing, but his topic ban violations led to an indefinite block in early 2014. Since then, he has created nine confirmed sock puppets and with his most recent account, Allen7054 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), he has continued adding unneeded categories to various articles, which contravenes his topic ban (, , ). This round of sock puppetry is the final straw. I therefore would like to propose that he should be indefinitely banned by the Misplaced Pages community.

• Support as nominator. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:37, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support. This editor will not stop. Nor do they any longer respond to the communities policies and guidelines in regard to adding categories to various articles. MarnetteD|Talk 04:47, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support. I honestly thought he was already community banned by this point. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:18, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support - A formality, since he is indeffed and no one will unblock, but a necessary formality, since he is a persistent disruptor who won't learn. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:23, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support - This will be my first time adding a vote so please feel free to correct any mistakes I make. He's been adding cataigories to pages he knows nothing about, he tried labeling Luigi and even Kirby as *Video Game Bosses*. He's even tried labeling Meta Knight as a *Super Hero* and *Super Villain*. --Vaati the Wind Demon (talk) 12:18, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support with deep regret. This looks like an editor with great potential, but one who simply cannot or will not play by the rules. The rap sheet is one that points to a serial disruptive editor who seems to enjoy thumbing his/her nose at the community and creating lots of work for people. Enough is enough. (Non-administrator comment) -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:29, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support. This user is very disruptive. He can't accept advice and he is disruptive. Also he fails to "get the point" 電子888 14:51, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support The IDHT is too strong in this one. Blackmane (talk) 13:52, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

• So if Allen7054 (talk · contribs) is a sock of CensoredScribe, why isn't it blocked? --Calton | Talk 04:15, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Because, as yet, only one admin has looked at the SPI report and they left a request for info. That request has been answered by a couple editors. The response time to SPI reports varies and I have seen it take as long as 10 days to two weeks. It should be noted that those are extreme cases and it is usually quicker. That can be frustrating but there are only so many admins and their time can be taken up by many different responsibilities. What is troubling is that the request for a checkuser was filed at the same time and there has not yet been an "endorse or decline" to that. It won't be completely ignored we just have to wait until someone has the time. MarnetteD|Talk 04:29, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Look above.

• CensoredScribe was proposed for a community ban on grounds of socking as Allen7054.
• CensoredScribe has, in fact, been community banned.
• Therefore, the community has decided that Allen7054 is a sock.
• Allen7054 has not been blocked as a sock.

Notice the contradiction yet? --Calton | Talk 05:48, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

No, CensoredScribe was banned for socking with many confirmed socks, see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/CensoredScribe/Archive, with Allen7054 mentioned as a new suspect. Allen7054 is not yet confirmed: the evidence is not solid enough to block per WP:DUCK, and the SPI is awaiting a checkuser report. JohnCD (talk) 08:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC).

Backlog (or other problem) at speedy deletion?

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

Hello.

Two days ago, I db-g6-ed a redirect (Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Galveston–Houston) for speedy deletion, so that I should be able to move the target of the redirect there. The redirect has been edited, so I can't move the article there myself.

My experience from previous speedy deletion requests is that it doesn't take very long time before they're carried out, max one day, most often much shorter.

I have checked back in Category:Candidates for uncontroversial speedy deletion a couple of times, and if I remember correctly, there were other candidates than those that are there now, while "my" candidate remains there. If that is really so, they have been deleted, but not mine.

So, obviously I'm wondering if there is a problem with "my" candidate.

Could someone please check?

Thanks.

HandsomeFella (talk) 06:07, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

@HandsomeFella: I looked at that yesterday while patrolling the speedy-deletion queue, and the reason I did not action it is that it involves replacing a hyphen with an n-dash. I remember interminable arguments about that a year or two back (the "N-dash Wars"), which I found so depressing that I lost interest, and don't remember what the eventual resolution was, if any. If you can point me to a policy which means that an n-dash will stick, and not start an edit war, I'll make the change. JohnCD (talk) 10:44, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

@JohnCD: As far as I know, there's only the MOS:ENDASH guideline, specifically section "In compounds when the connection might otherwise be expressed with to, versus, and, or between". The "N-dash-Wars" rings a bell, but I can't remember what it was, or when. Anyway, I'm not aware of any current controversy regarding this, so I think this is uncontroversial. HandsomeFella (talk) 11:55, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

OK,  Done. JohnCD (talk) 12:22, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. HandsomeFella (talk) 12:56, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Excessive topic-ban

I was given permission by the Administrator, Nick, to bring this matter to AN here.

Due to a dispute in the article Ghost in the Shell, Salvidrim! felt i was disruptive and had banned me from the article. If he feels so, fine....I'm not going to argue over it. However, i believe Salvidrim! over-stepped a bit. Salvidrim! has also topic banned me from Ghost in the Shell (manga), and Ghost in the Shell (video game).

The video game article has never been up for dispute nor disruption, and i have always been the main contributor. In fact, i just recently put it up for peer review, here to consider putting up in FAC, which i find too much of a coincidence and highly unreasonable. The manga has been relieved more than a while ago and since then, the article has barely been touched by me (mainly because the article looks fine).

As you can see here, Salvidrim! isn't really answering the questions i have, and i feel the response is lacking of what an admin should give. So i would like this to be reviewed primarily by what is allowed by the members under the current probation. I think the more appropriate way is focusing on the issue, not just make punishment for punishment sake. other members have seen the core of the issue. I believe right now, Ryulong specifically has an incredible advantage over Ghost in the Shell and Ghost in the Shell (manga), by merging them, despite not being the main contributor, nor technically having the consensus. You can see my extensive comment on the situation here.

On a lighter note, (but not what i'm most concerned about): i feel the "indefinite" probation seems rather excessive (then again, i found a lot of issues in the past were taken care of excessively). I was more than happy when the appropriate topic/two-way interaction ban (not one-way) works REALLY well...and since then, i have been able to edit well and quicker, and even other editors have noticed my recent contributions. And i don't have to stress about members talking me and feeding fire to it all while i'm biting my tongue...it really takes care of the core issue. This however, i don't feel is necessary, just being excessive. Lucia Black (talk) 06:28, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

• I personally would not have restricted you from the other two pages, as the dispute that resulted in the restriction is pretty focused on just Ghost in the Shell. However in the application of a sanction like this, the question should be whether the administrative action was reasonable, not what I would due if I replaced the judgement of the sanctioning admin with my own. One of the goals of the probation is to avoid the need to have a discussion, so overriding a decision should only be done if it is clearly wrong. In that light, I think the 3 page topic ban is well within reasonable admin discretion. I might slightly encourage User:Salvidrim! to reduce the topic ban to the one page, but don't think there is a case for the community overriding that discretion. Monty₈₄₅ 06:53, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
  • He would have need extensive consensus to do so, either way as its outside of "automatic topic ban" that he's allowed to do. So i genuinely feel like there is a case....it may not be the biggest case, but i am bringing up valid points. Lucia Black (talk) 07:09, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Your inability to comment on a merge I may or may not propose has no bearing on your topic ban.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:56, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

In the past, you've merged without Consensus. So, what i'm saying is that

Endorse Topic Ban - If you look at the terms of the sanctions against Lucia, all it says is that it has to be an admin who feels she's being disruptive. She's been arguing with a battleground mentality for months there now. Sergecross73 msg me 12:37, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: We probably share same kind of opinion about this complaint and user. I admire your skills of evaluating and drawing conclusions, Lucia has been also engaged in misinterpreting a number of users. I think that topic ban on 3 pages was a good idea, from "endorse ban" you mean WP:BANNED or you were talking about the topic ban? Thanks. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 18:32, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I had only really meant Salv's topic ban. (I'd technically support both honestly, but there was no consensus to indef block/ban her last time that discussion was had, so I don't especially want to push for it now.) I've amended my first comment to make that clearer. Thanks for having me clear that up. Sergecross73 msg me 19:25, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

• I will concede that extending to ban to the other two GITS pages seems like a bit broad, but there is ample history of unproductive disputes on all pages of this topic, which led to Lucia's probation and IBAN, as well as at least one previous pageban under the probation (applied by User:Nick). I felt it there was a more-than-reasonable probability that banning Lucia from the one page currently causing issue would cause the disruptive editing to carry on over to other GITS pages. I also stopped short of an actual GITS topic-ban because the wording of the probation specifies that she can be banned from pages and not topics, and I wanted to avoid seeing this reversed on a technicality. Lucia needs to realize we are putting these things (IBAN, probation, pagebans) in place to avoid having to ban/indef her entirely. As I explained to Lucia, the fact that she still sees disputes as combats that she can win or lose proves she is unable to conduct herself in a manner respectful of Misplaced Pages's behavioral policies. She also repeats this sentiment above, talking about how Ryulong now "has an advantage" despite "not being the main contributor". This convinces me that, at the very least, the indefinite probation currently in effect is still a perfectly appropriate remedy. I will not oppose removing the current pagebans from all but the main object of the dispute if the community thinks it is too broad a sanction. I would support a one-way (Lucia>Ryulong) IBAN. I would support a two-way Lucia<>Ryulong IBAN if Ryulong agrees to it. I agree with Ryulong that these IBANs would be potentially useless, but I think they can't hurt in trying to maintain a positive atmosphere. I would potentially, weakly support a proposition for a siteban+indef block for Lucia, as I think far too much time has been wasted in dealing with the drama that she seems to attract relentlessly, but I do not think that we are necessarily at this point yet. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:41, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

@Sergecross73 and Salvidrim!: The idea of indefinite bans, shows this isn't about how "disruptive" i am or how much you're preventing. Most of this seems mostly punitive rather than preventative. A topic ban of Ghost in the Shell, would've been plenty already, but the others just ostracize anyone from providing a consensus or establishing "no-consensus".

You know my history, but we also know how much it correlates to other members who have been equally (if not more) disruptive (even without me). Like i said, the topic-ban to the article you believe i was disruptive is more than enough. There is no "technicality", just misinterpretation. The point is to ban me from the articles i'm being disruptive...not to ban whichever one you want.

Whether you like me or not, shouldn't be a point Lucia Black (talk) 05:48, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Facepalm Not this (Redacted) again. LB, I'm going to say this the same way that I said it to Ryulong, and to the other editor you love to conflict with. We don't give two rats asses who started it, who is contesting it, or who has an unfair advantage. What we do care about is seeing the persistent and perennial drama crops with respect to Japanese Culture (Anime/Manga/Video Games/Etc) and the 3 referenced editors to stop. Demonstrate that you can behave yourself and craft a appeal that addresses problems the community has identified with your actions. Hasteur (talk) 16:51, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support extended topic ban based primarily on this filing. Before posting here, Lucia should have read the boomerang essay. I don't know much about Japanese animation other than that it causes conflict between certain editors including Ryulong and Lucia. I know Ryulong enough from other areas to know that he gets into too many controversies, but that he is usually right and that he is primarily concerned about the quality of the encyclopedia. Lucia's post here does not focus on the quality of the encyclopedia, but on whether the topic ban gives Ryulong an unfair advantage. In other words, it appears that she is more concerned about her antagonism for another editor than about the encyclopedia in general. Based on her own arguments, I Support the extended topic ban. She is fortunate not to have a one-way interaction ban imposed. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:29, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

@Hasteur: Like i said, my "disruption" has always correlated between specific members who are equally (and again, if not more) as disruptive, so i know my actions, i just feel a lot of times its looked at in a very specific perspective. this isn't about whether Ryulong is right or wrong, you don't need to know how familiar with anime/manga media, all you have to do is know the topic well. but i'm not here to discuss the issue....after all, i am "banned" from it, however, i am here to contest the other two articles that have nothing to do with my disruption. the Ghost int he Shell (manga) and Ghost in the Shell (video game) article neither have received any disruption by me, and i have done nothing but contribute to those articles.

@Robert McClenon: What exactly do you want me to get out of WP:BOOMERANG that is related to this situation? All i'm asking is that they topic-ban "appropriately" by only keeping Ghost in the Shell topic ban, and wait and see if i ever become "disruptive" over the other two. And so far no one has proven that this is "NOT" punitive. What i'm most concerned about is the article, but at the moment, am i even in a position to even discuss it? I'm not even trying to appeal for the current article, that Salvidrim believes i'm being disruptive.

why isn't what i'm asking for isn't fair or appropriate? Lucia Black (talk) 01:09, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

This is the general flow of just about all the discussions that go unfavorably for Lucia. She proposes something. It's opposed for a variety of legitimate reasons. She doesn't agree with them, and then proceeds to not to acknowledge them. She'll just continue to act like no one has given an actual reason. It's one of the reasons her talk page arguments go on forever. This very discussion demonstrates why Salvidrim's actions were a good, preventative choice. Sergecross73 msg me 14:39, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Proxy check backlog

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

At WP:OP there are outstanding proxy check requests over ten days old. Who/where should I ping or poke? JohnCD (talk) 10:49, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

New "superprotect" protection level

In order to keep discussion on this topic centralised, please leave any comments on this in the thread on the Village Pump. --Dan Garry, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 15:22, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Editors here may be interested in this thread at VPT about a new WMF-backed "superprotect" protection level that would not be editable by admins. — Mr. Stradivarius 15:11, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

• So much for trying to develop trust between the dev team and the community. Monty₈₄₅ 15:13, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Advice needed for weird AfD problem

Not sure this is the right place, but then, I've never seen a situation like this before where an article at AfD is moved to a different namespace... Earlier today I nominated Self Publishing in India for deletion. Shortly thereafter, the article creator moved the article to Misplaced Pages:Self Publishing in India, so that the AfD template now displays an error message ("This template is being used in the wrong namespace. To nominate this project page for deletion, go to Miscellany for deletion"). There is already a more general list like that in WP space (Misplaced Pages:List of companies engaged in the self-publishing business) and this one could easily be merged into that, which would probably be the best solution. But as things stand, I'm a bit unsure about what to do. Move it back to article space and let the AfD run its course? Close the AfD early (but what close rationale would be appropriate) and then propose a merge of the two pages? Any advice is welcome. --Randykitty (talk) 20:10, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm moving this back. It looks like an article, and the author admits such at the AfD; their edit summary while moving it, which says this is a WikiProject, might be an attempt to game the system. I see no reason for this to be in the Misplaced Pages namespace. --Kinu /_c 20:15, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Looks like JohnCD beat me to it while I was typing this. --Kinu /_c 20:16, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes,  Fixed by moving it back. I will explain to the article author that this is not how things work. JohnCD (talk) 20:19, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

And while we're at it, looking at Pa2ankurtiwari's (deleted) contributions, I'm pretty sure they're a sock of Theindianicon; see the history of Ankur Tiwari (same topic, same content as Ankur Tiwari, Scientist, Inventor and Author, history also contains a similar bogus cross-namespace page move) and also an overlap in editing here. --Kinu /_c 20:23, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks people! I was indeed a bit surprised that a seeming newbie knew how to perform a cross namespace move. --Randykitty (talk) 21:54, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Need some help with this

Trying to move a page from this to this, but get a message that the latter is on the title blacklist, so I myself cannot perform this move. Is there an admin who could possibly do this move? The other reason for this request is that I am currently moving articles created via the AfC process out of the WT:AFC namespace in favor of the draft namespace as per this Village pump discussion.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 20:34, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

 Done, but this has got no future here: Misplaced Pages is not for the complete text of poems, see WP:NOTREPOSITORY #3. It could maybe go in WikiSource. JohnCD (talk) 20:52, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks John. My main concern was getting it out of the WT space. Now that you have made an advisement as to the disposition of this draft, I can go ahead and decline it with the reasoning that you provided.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 20:56, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually I see that you have done that .   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 20:57, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Review of unblocks

DragonflySixtyseven (DS) has unblocked two related accounts: PathOfExile (talk · contribs · count) and I really need that username (talk · contribs · count). DS never consulted with me before unblocking either account, even though I was the blocking administrator on both. After unblocking PathOfExile, DS went to Kinu's talk page here and told Kinu as Kinu had become involved after the initial block and had revoked talk page access of the account. I registered my disapproval in that same section, including pinging DS, but rather than respond, DS then unblocked the other account, an admitted sock of the first.

This started with an edit war between PathOfExile and an IP about whether the video game (Path of Exile is a video game) belonged in the article Permanent death. As you can see, PathOfExile kept calling the IP's edits vandalism; they were clearly not vandalism. I semi-protected the article and blocked Path for the user name problem. Rather than request a new user name, Path went bananas. DS also saw fit to delete the talk page to "erase" the history. Only administrators will be able to view what happened. First, Path deleted the contents of the talk page. Okay, he can do that. Then on his empty talk page he said: "Currently blocked for reverting vandalism." (That's a theme, btw.) Then he wrote an absurd unblock request, in which he asked for the user name, gfjkhjfgdhjgfdhgfj (a jumble of letters often favored by socks and other disruptive editors), and said, among other things:

• I expect to be unbanned and apologized to
• I wonder how many would-be great Misplaced Pages contributors got IP-banned from the site by power-tripping admins because they foolishly picked a username that corresponded to a game/movie/company/commercial product they might not even have been familiar with. Well, guess we'll never know that, huh?
• You can pat yourself on the back now, and hit that DENY button. Well? What are you waiting for, there's nothing more for you to read here. Oh, and don't forget to protect my talk page from editing to make sure I don't add anything more to it in the future such as a ton of advertisements for example.

It was shortly after this that Kinu decided to revoke talk page access.

Then Path created the sock account (fully admitted to it). If you read the unblock request link (he had trouble putting in the material, he said), it says, for example: "Below, I will explain why I was blocked on my previous account, why I created another account after the previous one was blocked, and why my second account was blocked as well. I will also explain why I believe that my blocks were made in error, and why I believe that they should be lifted." To his credit, at great length he seems to recognize that what he called vandalism wasn't, although he again goes on at great length why his version is correct.

Now, I can see possibly unblocking the master after consultation, but it's extraordinarily rare to unblock a sock account. And, procedurally, DS was way out on a limb here. We also now have both accounts unblocked with the user asking for the master account to be renamed yet we still have the puppet account. What a mess.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:05, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Oops, meant to leave that message for you, not for Kinu. It's a series of misunderstandings; the user did overreact, but that's not a valid reason to remove talkpage and e-mail access as "troll". I'd also say that you overreacted by blocking the user in the first place. The user had tried to file a very detailed and polite unblock request only to hit the edit filter because his layout glyphs were interpreted as ASCII art. The user has tried to do things properly (including reporting a pending edit war to an admin rather than continuing to breach 3RR); the second account was used solely to draw attention to the problems that had happened with the first account... which didn't work either. The initial block was misplaced, and from there things just got worse (especially since there was Wrong Version protected). I am quite convinced that this user is productive and not a troublemaker, and have acted accordingly. And my reason for unblocking the secondary account was that its block had been for reasons that were no longer valid: if you're going to match the attributes of a sock to its master when the master is blocked, shouldn't you also match them when it's unblocked? DS (talk) 23:16, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

The user has posted a detailed statement on his talk page; the reason he has not posted it here himself is that I specifically asked him not to edit any pages except the namechange noticeboard until such time as his name is changed. Please read it. DS (talk) 23:35, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I did not label the user a troll. I did not remove talk page access. I removed talk page access from the sock account. The ASCII art business was on the sock account unblock request, not the original master's request, which was over the top. I have no idea what you're talking about with matching the attributes when it's unblocked. Nor have you explained why you did all this unilaterally and only notified whomever (I accept your statement that you meant to notify me) after you saw fit to unblock the account, delete talk pages and user pages. There was no overreaction to the original block. There are lots of edit-warring accounts that go to AN3. That doesn't mean they are innocent. And even this one acknowledges that the vandalism labels were incorrect, but that was what he was saying at that time.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:52, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Deleting a user talk page - I would find that highly unusual, over the top. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Undelete&target=User+talk%3APathOfExile&timestamp=20140804191318 should be restored to the visible history, because it's relevant. It may not be visible in the current revision, but I don't see any reason not to have it in the history - it did happen. Any objections? --Joy (talk) 23:37, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

DS: Per WP:RAAA can you explain how your un-discussed action is appropriate and explain why you did not discuss it, first?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alanscottwalker (talk • contribs) 23:52, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I've already restored the talk page. Kinu is the one who removed talkpage access, which is how I got you and him mixed up; I should have posted to your talkpage also -- sorry about that. But then, you shouldn't have blocked just for the username. You (I think I'm responding to Bbb23?) should have asked first if there was any connection between the user and the company, and suggested a namechange (it's hardly promotional if he's removing mentions of it from articles!). As for how the action is appropriate: if it leads to a good outcome, it's appropriate. And I believe that having this user continue to edit will be a good outcome. Process is important, yes, but it is not all-important. As for why I didn't discuss it: I examined the situation and came to the conclusion that discussion would be superfluous. Each day I delete many pages and block many accounts. Most of the time I'm right. Sometimes I'm wrong, and on those occasions I willingly admit error and undo my actions and apologize. I regret not having raised the issue with you beforehand, and I apologize for this omission; however, I maintain that I was right to unblock the user. DS (talk) 00:15, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Your conclusion that discussion is superfluous is without basis in WP:RAAA, and therefore should not be maintained by you. It's a simple matter of going over the issue with a colleague, so then it does not have to be, here, after the fact. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:33, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Oops, edit conflict and now i see that I wasn't responding directly to Bbb23. Oh well, my points still stand. DS (talk) 00:15, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I regularly block inappropriate user names. Promotion comes in all sorts of flavors. In this instance, the user was removing the entry because he felt it didn't reflect the game's plot and characters. Certainly that could be construed as editing on behalf of the video game company. In any event, things spiraled out of control because of the user's reaction, which he has graciously since admitted to. And as for your implication that I don't apologize when I'm wrong, I apologize often enough, thank you very much. Perhaps it didn't occur to you that I might not think that what I did. as the events unfolded, was wrong. I work as an SPI clerk, and I have to tell you that unblocking an admitted sock unilaterally is not justified simply because you think it was the right thing to do.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, my reason for revoking talk page access *wasn't* the text of the unblock request itself; it was the piped links therein, as seen here. DS, did you take that aspect of the TPA revoking into consideration when unblocking? Having my actions reversed is fine, but WP:AGF isn't a suicide pact, and having to assume it when there is no reason to is ridiculous. If someone uses the word "ass" in an unblock request, fine; if they pipe that text with a link to Bbb23's user page with a clear intent to call someone an ass, that's another story. If someone "promises" to stop being disruptive, but tries to be cheeky by linking to the article Lie, I'm going to assume they're here to troll. --Kinu /_c 01:09, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Huh. I recall your saying something about piped links before, but I never made the connection until now. The things you miss. Of course, I've been called far worse things than "ass", but, you're right, it's the sneaky part that's troubling. Someone once called me a thief. I never understood that.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:42, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I should point out, his statement was not a 'promise to stop being disruptive'. He said "show me anything even remotely reminiscent of an edit that would be made for publicity and/or promotional purposes, and I promise to never make another edit to Misplaced Pages again". Because, after all, he wasn't being disruptive. He wasn't making any publicity or promotional edits either. I've read his content, I've read what he actually said, what he actually did. He was not doing anything inappropriate at first except for the typical newbie mistake of edit warring, and of having a non-optimal username. He then reported the edit warring to an admin, and got blocked for his username. Then things blew up. DS (talk) 02:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

• Wow, that is the *****est unblock request I have ever seen in all these years. I was looking for Bbb being called an ass, and instead I found "]". So that's plenty of reason to revoke talk page access, and that request wasn't placed in the heat of the moment, but a day after--so Kinu calling the user a troll doesn't come out of the blue. I have to say, that second account--I also don't understand why that was unblocked, or why a talk page was deleted. But hey, party's over, I suppose, and I suppose also that PathofExile will realize that this kind of...talk will get them in trouble again easily. Drmies (talk) 04:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

  DS has unblocked reblocked the second account but not for the right reason. He did it because Path "requested that this be done in order to show good faith." That's really big of him. Even assuming that after discussion the decision was made to unblock Path and give him a second chance, there was never any reason to unblock the sock account. Why would Path need two accounts?

  At this point I would be inclined to drop the whole thing and let Path have his second chance, although he still says he will "definitely also re-introduce the change I made to the article prior to my being blocked", which, frankly, is not the right thing to do unless there's a consensus for the change. And if there were a consensus, it would be best to let someone other than Path implement that consensus. This would be true in any post edit-warring situation.

  I'm disappointed that DS doesn't seem to get that he went about this wrong and that it wasn't his place to take these unilateral actions. Putting aside the policy that militates against such actions, it's just not the way to run this project. We are always telling non-admins that this is a collaborative environment and that if they can't work together, they have no business being here. The same goes for those of us who wield the mop. Sure, we can disagree, but we shouldn't lift another administrator's sanctions just because our view differs from that administrator. It would be different if this had been urgent, but there was no rush to unblock Path.

  That's all I have for tonight. This has already taken up way too much of my time that could have been spent far more constructively, and I have no stomach for further discord. Perhaps others will express an opinion (Sunday is often a light day). If not, so be it, and the discussion will fade away as some do.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:06, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

  Correction, I reblocked the secondary account; you realized this, of course, and simply misspoke. I note that on Kinu's talkpage, you said that one "should act unilaterally only in obvious and egregious cases"; you then specified that this was not such a case. Clearly, we disagree in that respect. I'm willing to let this drop if you are; I'd appreciate it if you could withdraw your objection to the namechange, so that the 'promotional username' stuff doesn't recur. DS (talk) 13:40, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

  You're right, I misspoke. I've corrected it accordingly.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:29, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

  It does not matter that you view it as egregious; to inform your judgement about that, you have to discuss with your colleague, first. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:41, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

• Guys, does it really matter. You're both decent admins and I've never seen you two have conflict before. Let's move forward. What needs to be done now to get the system back on track with regard to this user and how would you two like this to be approached in the future?--v/r - TP 19:34, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

  TParis, that's only because I don't think we've ever crossed paths before. This is what I want. First, I'd like at least one admin other than DS or me to decide whether Path should be allowed to edit at Misplaced Pages based on everything that has happened to date. I will accept whatever that decision is unless two admins express differing opinions, in which case someone is going to have determine a consensus. Second, I'd like DS's assurance that in the future he will consult with the blocking administrator before unblocking someone except in instances of obvious urgency. He doesn't have to apologize for what has transpired. He doesn't have to change his view that Path should have been unblocked. This is a procedural/policy issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:38, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

  Okay. I give you my assurance on that point. DS (talk) 02:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Unblock#Unblocking

Unblocking or shortening of a block is most common when a blocked user appeals a block. An uninvolved administrator acting independently reviews the circumstances of the block, the editor's prior conduct, and other relevant evidence, along with any additional information provided by the user and others, to determine if the unblock request should be accepted. Common reasons include: the circumstances have changed, a commitment to change is given, the administrator was not fully familiar with the circumstances prior to blocking, or there was a clear mistake. See "Block reviews" below for additional steps to take.

This place would, in fact, be a far better place if more admins were willing to break the "Code of silence" and promptly unblock when, as the Misplaced Pages:Unblock policy clearly says at the top of the page Administrators can "unblock" a user when they feel the block is unwarranted or no longer appropriate. NE Ent 00:34, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

As is often the case, you not only distort policy, but you also draw dramatic inferences from your distortion. That policy also says: "Except in cases of unambiguous error or significant change in circumstances dealing with the reason for blocking, administrators should avoid unblocking users without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator to discuss the matter. If the blocking administrator is not available, or if the administrators cannot come to an agreement, then a discussion at the administrators' noticeboard is recommended." It also says that case involving sock puppets are "difficult to judge". And, of course, WP:RAAA has already been cited: "Administrators are expected to have good judgment, and are presumed to have considered carefully any actions or decisions they carry out as administrators. Administrators may disagree, but administrative actions should not be reversed without good cause, careful thought, and (if likely to be objected to), where the administrator is presently available, a brief discussion with the administrator whose action is challenged."--Bbb23 (talk) 00:43, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

No, NE Ent. No one is talking about being silent, quite the opposite. What would make this a better place would be when people don't make wholly unsupported claims about codes like your comment. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:56, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

• What a mess, eh? I do love it when a random IP address drops something on my talk page. Bbb23, you've asked for an independent admin to decide whether PathOfExile should be allowed to continue editing. Hopefully, I'll do. In my opinion, yes, he should remain unblocked, on the following conditions. Firstly, he needs to improve his attitude - comments the ones he made in previous unblock requests will not be tolerated and I for one will be willing to come down harshly on him if he does step out of line on this. Secondly, he should (at for the short term) move away from discussions on the game Path Of Exile. We've got enough single purpose accounts on here, and if he's only here to protect the game's interests I don't see that he'll be a net positive to the encyclopedia. I'm not saying that should be an official topic ban or anything like that, just that he needs to focus elsewhere for a while. Finally, the other account should remain blocked and the user should not make any further accounts. I'll explain this to him on his talk page. I'll also go ahead and rename the account, I see that as an instant improvement to the situation. DS, I'm also glad to hear your assurances that you will discuss matters with the blocking admin in future - otherwise this sort of thing ends up blowing up in front of ArbCom and I'm quite happy with it not being there. I'm really glad to see that you two both managed to de-escalate here. Worm(talk) 11:23, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Calling edit-filter managers

Hi all, there is a problem with Filter 31 at the moment which is causing multiple false positives and clogging up the FP board. Whilst the filter is certainly picking up correct unconstructive edits (i.e. ), examples of the errors can be seen here - , , and this one which ironically blocked an editor from actually reporting the error at FP!

It also appears to be preventing unconfirmed editors from leaving standard template notices .

I have pinged User:NawlinWiki but he hasn't edited since the 7th. Could someone conversant with the filter please have a look at it? Black Kite (talk) 11:46, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Have you asked at WT:EFM? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 12:19, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I just reverted the last updated to EF31, NawlinWiki can check on their return (it was two strings). — xaosflux 12:21, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Administrative backlog