Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by EvergreenFir (talk | contribs) at 04:54, 13 August 2015 (→Backlog on AIV: new section). 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 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 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 16 days ago on 6 January 2025) Seeking uninvolved closure; proposal is blocking GA closure czar 11:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump#Proposal to supersede consensus #50

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

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

Talk:Xiaohongshu#Requested move 14 January 2025

(Initiated 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

Community & Bureaucrat based desysoping proposal

A discussion is taking place regarding a proposal to create a community and bureaucrat based desysoping committee. The proposal would affect the position of administrator. Your input is encouraged. Please see Misplaced Pages:Administrators/RfC for BARC - a community desysoping process. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 19:55, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

This was already announced once on this page, and archived by the bot. If you want it to stay on the page until the RFC closes, you'll need to fake a timestamp or something. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for the note! I looked to see if it had been announced, but didn't find it. I didn't think the bot would archive it so fast. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:08, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

If you do a text search for Kudpung in the latest archive, you'll find it. I believe AN is archived after 48 hours of inactivity, ANI after 24. I just learned about {{Bump}}, I'll used that here: Bumping thread for 30 days. Floquenbeam (talk) 20:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC) .

• Thanks! I did not know about {{bump}}. I did now find the archived notice. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:15, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• Just so you guys are aware, this and other relevant community discussions are posted up in the centralized discussion, which is posted at the top of both AN and ANI. See? You can even transclude the {{centralized discussion}} template on your own user or talk page so as to stay up to date on any major community discussions! No problem with stickying this post, just a little PSA. :) Swarm 03:35, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

• Well aware, but thanks. Issue was raised at the RfC that this RfC was not publicized enough. I was attempting to respond to that. Yes, the centralized discussions are posted liberally, but realistically few pay attention to that list. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:02, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

On a related point, since I might be a closer on this one: so far, I've generally announced on this page any intention to close RfCs that show up at CENT, mainly for transparency and to try to get other closers to sign on. One problem is that I don't want to interfere with other closers, so I'm not going to do that any more. (Another problem is that someone who wants to be a closer now may not be so enthusiastic when it's time to close.) So, fair warning: if an RfC is at CENT and I'm interested in closing, I'll make a perfunctory statement in the RfC itself, so that a closing process or statement doesn't catch anyone by surprise, but I won't advertise for closers. - Dank (push to talk) 16:20, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Regulation Committee and alternatives to consensus

Bumping thread for 30 days. ceradon (talk • edits) 04:21, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Members of the community are invited to give their thoughts at a request for comment to discuss Wikipedians' alternatives to consensus, and the formation of a proposed Regulation Committee. Thank you, --ceradon (talk • edits) 04:20, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Appeal of topic ban

A little more than a year ago I was toppic banned (link). I hereby appeal for lifting this ban.

This is a link to discussion regarding my last ban appeal which was closed as "no consensus" because editors who participated in it did not appear to reach consensus to remove or alter the ban. At my last ban appeal I explained how many articles I created in the meantime, how many of them were approved as DYK articles, how many of them were start or C class articles. In the meantime the list is much longer with 69 new articles and 19 DYK approved. I will repeat that I want to return to the topic area because the subject of my particular interest (Ottoman Empire) is frequently related to post-1900 Serbs and Serbia and because sometimes I simply am able to constructively contribute to it, but can not due to restriction. I promise to continue to take a very good care not to violate[REDACTED] policies while editing articles related to the topic area from which I was banned as well as other topic areas. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:43, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

The closing statement for the last discussion said "I recommend Antidiskriminator try again in a few months and demonstrates an understanding of why the ban is in place beyond "The ban was imposed because the community reached consensus to ban me"." - Can you demonstrate an understanding of why the ban was placed? This request, again, only states that you were topic banned. Sam Walton (talk) 20:53, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes of course. I explained that in my last appeal, but little further in the text. Here it is: "The ban was imposed because the community reached consensus to ban me....The community reached consensus to ban me because of my talkpage behavior. I had numerous content and conduct related disputes with a group of editors. My communication with them was seen as disruptive (unproductive, unconstructive, annoyingly bizarre, unhelpful, mind-numbing, obstructing, stonewalling, ....). " Although most of the votes for the ban come from editors that I have been in conflict with, I do have a plan to avoid similar problems in this topic areas by strictly following[REDACTED] policies and avoiding both content and conduct disputes with other editors.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:10, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Peacemaker67

I appreciate that Antid is entitled to choose to appeal here as an alternative to AE, but the behaviour he was banned for was done under AE/ARBMAC. As someone who has had many extremely frustrating interactions with Antid over a couple of years, mostly on talk pages, but also in article creation, titling and similar issues, I have little confidence that Antid will have learnt his lesson, as the last time a topic ban was proposed, implemented and subsequently lifted in 2012 by EdJohnston, Antid went straight back to the same behaviour (which is why this ban imposed by Drmies is in place now). His initial approach above avoided even describing the topic ban or why it was imposed. If I was appealing, I would consider it necessary to demonstrate that I completely understood why I had been topic-banned, before asking for the ban to be lifted. He chose not to do that, and it had to be drawn out of him. It would also ensure admins could quickly understand what he thought it was imposed for. He also doesn't appear to accept that those that supported the ban and opposed its lifting last time had a case. He appears to think it is some sort of personal vendetta against him.

Since his last appeal, he may well have been productive in the Ottoman Empire period of Serbian history (pre-1900), but any productivity and acceptable wikibehaviour in that time period does not imply that he can achieve that in later time periods, which are far more contested, and I caution admins that if this ban is lifted, they need to be willing to consider a more stringent or even indefinite topic ban if he returns to his previous behaviour. I also think that Antid should be required to provide "behaviour references" from editors working in the area he is apparently productively editing in, including ones he has had disagreements with.

In the interests of fairness, and to give him some benefit of the doubt (something which I have had in short supply with him for several years due to his behaviour), I would be willing to support a small extension of the time period from 1900 to 1913 so that he can edit in the topic area period including the pre-World War I Balkan Wars. As far as his interest in the Ottoman Empire is concerned, this gives him everything except the period 1914-1918. I may live to regret this, but how about a modification of the topic ban to read "a ban on Antidiskriminator editing in topics involving 'Serbs and Serbia 1914-current' (broadly construed)". Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

A probation period might be useful. I hope you guys are willing to act if he stays true to form, because you don't deal with him on a daily basis when he is free to roam the Balkans at will. Easy to AGF and agree to lift, but sometimes, when it comes to taking action against a recidivist who re-offends, all we can hear is crickets... So I'll ping you all if (when) he does. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 06:48, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

And a point on the much- loved ROPE essay. Under "When not to use" it says "If a user has already been blocked numerous times for the same behavior, they've already gotten all the rope they need; the hangman is just asleep at the switch" and *Banned users – users blocked by community discussion or ArbCom"... So, not so much. I'm out. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 07:16, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

1RR is unlikely to be of much use. Most of Antid's most egregious behaviour was on talk pages rather than articles. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 12:31, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Unless Antid addresses the concerns expressed by myself and others, showing he truly understands what he was doing wrong before and how he will avoid doing it in the future, I am moving to Oppose. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:35, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion which resulted in Antid being banned from the Pavle Djurisic article is at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive126#Antidiskriminator, so no-one here can argue they didn't know his history. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 12:17, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Opinions on lifting the ban

• I am comfortable with lifting the restriction on the basis that if the problem recurs, we can always re-impose it. It might be an idea to have a "probation" period during which any recidivism can go straight back to a restriction without the need for further debate. Guy (Help!) 11:56, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support lifting of restriction per WP:ROPE. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:25, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
• Two guys in a row...that's suspicious. Hmm. I personally have no real objection and am a firm believer in rope, though that has a somewhat negative figurative value. I'm somewhat biased, of course, since I think "Antidiskriminator" has a pretty cool (if kocky) user name. Dr. "Not A Guy" mies (talk) 14:26, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Whoever wrote that ROPE essay is a certified genius. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:10, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

& a tad Vainglorious to boot. ;) --64.85.217.37 (talk) 11:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose This request is pretty unconvincing. When asked to explain what led to the topic ban Antidiskriminator simply quotes themselves, and then blames being banned on "editors that I have been in conflict with": even if this is the case, to have got so many editors who are in good standing so seriously offside demonstrates that this wasn't some kind of vendetta, and implying that this was the case here as part of their request to have the topic ban lifted is a rather bad sign. Their "plan" to avoid the problems which led to the ban is also basically a motherhood statement which provides no details on how they will avoid the problems (for instance, by staying away from certain articles, adopting a voluntary 1RR restriction, making appropriate use of dispute resolution, looking for a mentor, etc). Nick-D (talk) 11:34, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
• I certainly think a probation period and the 1RR are necessary to promote good behaviour. These topics have been very stable for the past year, I don't want to be dragged into conflicts yet again. As to whether the ban should be lifted or not, I don't think it is my place to say. IJA (talk) 12:25, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - Does Antidiskriminator understand why he/she was banned in the first place? Antidiskriminator hasn't given any examples as to why he/ she was blocked. Instead Antidiskriminator has stated that he/she was blocked because his/her edits were "seen as disruptive (unproductive, unconstructive, annoyingly bizarre, unhelpful, mind-numbing, obstructing, stonewalling, ....)". Antidiskriminator has basically said that he/she was blocked because other users viewed his/her edits as being "disruptive" and has listed a few examples of disruptive behaviour. Antidiskriminator still hasn't acknowledged any wrongdoing on his/her behalf. Whilst I support his/her right to appeal the ban, I'm not entirely convinced that Antidiskriminator understands why he/she was banned. I get the feeling that Antidiskriminator still believes that he/she was blocked because other editors were prejudice towards him/her (which is obviously not the case). I'm not sure that Antidiskriminator understands his/her wrong doing. I'm not sure that Antidiskriminator has learnt his/her lesson. Saying that other users viewed his/her edits as being disruptive, then listing a few examples of general disruptive behaviour is not sufficient. Perhaps Antidiskriminator could give us some examples of his/her wrong doing and explain why it was wrong? This way we can tell if the lesson has been learnt. IJA (talk) 16:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
• I see little in the way of assertion, let alone evidence, of reform here. AD was banned from the topic area because he was wikilawyering, and he now promises to strictly adhere to policies. I seem to recall that that's sort of exactly what happened the last time - he used every method imaginable that stayed roughly within the realm of a cursory interpretation of the policies, while still pushing his POV and gnawing at our collective patience. Just for example, we need to hear exactly what he would now do at the article about that Serbian general, I forget the name, who got that Nazi decoration that is disputed by some Serbian people (including AD), where he was banned from the talk page earlier and where his actions had led to a huge amount of acrimony. Explanation of any other specific example would be good, too. --Joy (talk) 19:31, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Is it allowed to comment other editors (ie their ethnicity) on[REDACTED] Joy?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:30, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

1. @Joy - The name of the General is Pavle Đurišić.
2. @AD - No one commented on ethnicity, Serb is the name of the ethnic group, Serbian people refers to people associated with Serbia regardless of ethnicity.
3. @AD - Don't avoid what is being said by intentionally going off top and changing the subject, that is the sort of tactic and behaviour which got you topic banned. IJA (talk) 00:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Again, whether Joy is right or wrong to raise Antid's ethnicity, Antid immediately goes into wikilawyering mode, but makes no response on how he would deal with the issues he no doubt still has regarding the Pavle Đurišić article, which is the one Joy is refe rring to. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:24, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Mentioning ethnicity or rather the nation is perfectly pertinent here, because the topic area of the ban is strictly nationally defined. And I've no idea whatsoever why it would be disallowed to say that this historical person is Serbian or that that there are modern-day Serbian people who think something other than the consensus about that. That was one of the flash points in the disputes that led to earlier bans and this ban. I see no point in anyone second-guessing me trying talk about it, it would be an assumption of bad faith. Maybe AD is concerned that since he's not allowed to edit about the topic area generally, he's also not allowed to talk about it here? I'm pretty sure there's an exemption for that. --Joy (talk) 08:08, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I doubt that very much. He's wikilawyering about you raising his ethnicity in this context. I agree it is relevant, but I don't think it is necessary. He has worked against the lifting of the ban through his reticence to explain the real reasons why he was banned and by failing to address what he would do to avoid a recurrence. No doubt the page on which he lists all the things he doesn't like about various articles still exists, along with the list of articles he has quarantined himself from after being called out for his disruptive behaviour and wikilawyering. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 13:31, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

He actually went the extra mile at User talk:Drmies#Ethnicity of other editors. If it needs to be said at this point, I implore the community not to lift the ban on this egregious abuser. --Joy (talk) 14:45, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Joy, they did, and everyone is welcome to see the exchange there. They will also see that I said that I think you have a serious problem if you can't distinguish between POV and heritage. I think that your commenting and speculating on someone's ethnicity is distasteful as well as wrong, if it's used to base a judgment on: you're suggesting "AD is a Serb so they got a Serbian POV". Listen, if you cannot make the point about a POV from the edits, if you have to go by way of ethnic hypothesis, then you should lose the argument. Talk about edits, not about the editor. Consider this a warning: hypothesizing about an editor's ethnicity inasmuch as you think it commandeers their POV is a lack of AGF, and thus blockable. Now zip it, and make an actual argument. Drmies (talk) 21:21, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I made an argument, but because I used completely trivial terminology that can be misconstrued as an appeal to ethnic bias, you ignored it. The ethnicity, nationality, location and whatever other property of those people advocating the disruption of the Pavle Đurišić article is immaterial. The fact that it happened and may continue to happen in the future unless this is cleared up - is what is important in this discussion. --Joy (talk) 07:50, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

JFTR I explained further at User talk:Drmies#Ethnicity of other editors now. Let's link the old discussion here too: Talk:Pavle Đurišić/Archive 4#Iron cross controversy. That is about the "decoration that is disputed by some Serbian people (including AD)" from above. --Joy (talk) 11:55, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• I've been invited to comment by Antidiskriminator, so here's my 2c. I found myself on the receiving end of inappropriate conduct from the user on numerous occasions, and we've had disagreements more than once to say the least - but even so: support lifting the ban. While he isn't quite grovelling outright, my impression is he's serious. Plain and simple. That, and I can't bring myself to condone Joy's draconic "Purges", the standard vitriol notwithstanding. If he's stupid enough to actually continue in the same vein then I say t-ban him for good. Move that be made clear in any lifting of the sanction. Best regards to all (yes, even you Joy :)). -- Director (talk) 18:45, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

If I was actually into draconic purges, perhaps I would have purged some of your meaningless flamewars over the years, but as we can see you're still here to flame me. --Joy (talk) 19:41, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Again, just zip it with the personal stuff. Drmies (talk) 21:21, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Since the ban was introduced at his request, I don't think its "flaming" to point out Joy may be abusing his admin cred and going too far, demanding bans left and right. In fact - mostly "left", usually for those at odds with a Croatian right-wing point of view. Whereas he will defend his own to the point of distaste... As he (imo) made clear even in this thread, he is far from free of local ethno-political bias. -- Director (talk) 06:40, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Director, we have been on the same and different sides of arguments in the past, but in the recent past you have not been the one who has been dealing with Antid when he returns to type. Joy (and I) do, along with Tomobe03 and 23 editor. And others like IJA. It's nice that you (and others) think Antid should be given even more rope than he's already had from two increasingly-wide topic bans, but you won't be there dealing with it. I have no interest in nationalism on any side in the Balkans, and I am on the same page (if not the same paragraph) as Joy on this one. Far from grovelling, Antid shows no signs of contrition whatsoever, and has outlined no plan to avoid the same behaviour as got him banned in the past (twice). On that basis alone, he should be subjected to a "one strike and you're out" probation period at best, and retention of the t-ban as it is at worst. Please keep your conflicts with Joy out of this. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 06:51, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I really am. Peacemaker, this guy has been hammered twice: If he's a marginally sentient being, he'll know to shut up and behave. If not, I say lower the boom on him. You absolutely have a point, I haven't been there recently, and I won't be dealing with him if he gets back (you know I appreciate the damage control you do) - but I'm NOT suggesting you be forced to deal with more of his disruption. If he starts again, you ought to be able to put a stop to it by the quick procedure. Hence, like I said: he seems serious, he seems like he cares about not getting further sanctions. Put him on probation, two years, something like that. And take this into consideration: if he really is as dumb as all that, he'll receive harsher, more appropriate sanction.

Then again, you are right in that it would make everyone more comfortable if Antid does actually SAY he understands why he's been sanctioned, and that he WILL ACCEPT the community position when opposed. Antid? It doesn't look good at all, otherwise. -- Director (talk) 07:52, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Either I am abusing my admin cred and going too far, or I am not. There is no may. May is just being tendentious. And accusing me of such a misdeed without evidence is casting aspersions. Typical Internet flaming, really, but prohibited by Misplaced Pages policies. --Joy (talk) 11:04, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. In fact, why don't you propose a topic ban? Its not like your accusations of my "flame-warring" are in any way unsubstantiated or inflammatory in and of themselves.

Has it perhaps occurred to you that my using the (grossly provocative) word "may", might have something to do with the fact that that isn't my call to make? As for evidence, I think you may have done a decent job of displaying your bias on your own in this thread.

But now, in the best traditions of flame-warring, I think I'll withdraw from this discussion. At least with yourself. Bye. -- Director (talk) 12:59, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: this just went to archive, and Antid deserves a decision on his appeal. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:35, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrator intervention against vandalism

There is a need for administrator attention at Misplaced Pages:Administrator intervention against vandalism. I tried to contact multiple administrators on their talk pages but most of them never respond . I would like somebody to please respond to this message. Thank you. 2602:306:3357:BA0:3C9D:FF61:8557:B43B (talk) 21:57, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

(non-admin response) One incident of vandalism will almost never result in admin action. You reverted the vandalism, and warned the editor, that's about all that needs to be done at this point. If more incidents occur, report them to AIV, but one isolated incident is unlikely to get the IP blocked. BMK (talk) 22:13, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, please do not delete closed vandalism reports at WP:AIV. I know that you thought that you were being helpful because of your comment that they take up space. Misplaced Pages doesn't work like that, in that deletion doesn't save space, because nothing is ever really deleted. Leave the closed vandalism reports to be archived by a bot. You meant well but were being unintentionally disruptive. If it hadn't been for your edit summary, your own edit would have been reported as vandalism. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:02, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Just to be clear, your comment was addressed to the IP and not to me, yes? BMK (talk) 19:09, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, was Beyond My Ken being bad again? Can I plz blck thm? Drmies (talk) 22:02, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I would be honored to be blocked by the good doctor whenever they find it needful. BMK (talk) 22:30, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

My comment was addressed to the IP. I don't have a current issue with BMK. The IP deleted closed vandalism reports thinking that they took up space. This was enthusiastic but uninformed. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:43, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: The AIV reports are not archived by the helper bot, they're simply removed if the vandal is blocked. The declined reports have to be removed manually. I do this whenever I pop into AIV and it's backed up with declined reports.--Jezebel's Ponyo 19:18, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh. Okay. In that case, the IP was doing no harm and a small amount of good in removing the declined reports. Okay. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:41, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

User RHB100 and GPS article/topic

As per WP:CBAN, I'd like to respectfully suggest that RHB100 (talk · contribs) impose upon himself (or herself) an article ban on GPS and its talk page, and possible a topic ban on related articles. Several different users have tried to interact with him over the last couple of months years but he doesn't seem pleased and insists on controversial edits. It's detracting potential contributors to the article -- e.g., I'm about to unfollow that page. The situation brought by his 332 edits is vastly documented in Talk:Global Positioning System and many of its archives. Thanks. Fgnievinski (talk) 22:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC) (Pinging users who have edited Talk:GPS: @Kendall-K1, Woodstone, Siafu, DVdm, Crazy Software Productions, Mike1024, and Dicklyon: @Mmeijeri, Roesser, Kvng, EncMstr, NavigationGuy, TomStar81, and EdJohnston:.) Fgnievinski (talk) 22:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I have provided competent, honest, and objective criticism of the GPS article on the talk page. In proposing that the section "Geometric interpretation" of the GPS article is a disaster and should be removed, I have discussed what is wrong with the section and why it should be removed without mentioning any editor. It is important to look at the article and judge it objectively without biasing the judgement in any way by who may have written and edited the material. This is what I have done. I have noticed there has been a systematic deterioration in the quality of some of the sections in the GPS article and the Geometric interpretation section is one of the worst. This criticism is desirable since it can lead to a better quality GPS article. I have pointed out in "Geometric interpretation section is a disaster" on the talk page of the GPS article that there are statements made attributed to a reference which are in no way supported by the reference. I have pointed out that there are misleading statements which are incompatible with good quality GPS references. The "Geometric interpretation" section of the GPS article is terrible and should be removed. RHB100 (talk) 00:04, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this is the wrong place for this discussion. I think you want WP:AIN. Having said that, I have come to the reluctant conclusion that such a ban would be best for WP. I know I would engage more at the article and on its talk page if things were less hostile there. RHB100 agreed to stay away from the GPS article, and although he has toned it down a bit, his hostile attitude continues on the talk page. Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Kendall-K1, criticism of the GPS article does not imply a hostile attitude. The criticisms I make of the GPS article on the talk page are in no way motivated by hostility. Your accusations of a hostile attitude are in no way justified. I criticize the Geometric interpretation sections of the GPS article because this section is bad. This section involves the use of a reference to justify a statement which the reference in no way supports. It is quite proper to point this out. This does not imply a hostile attitude. RHB100 (talk) 18:09, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• WP:CBAN says: "Community sanctions may be discussed on the Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard (preferred) or on Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents." Fgnievinski (talk) 01:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Thank you. Kendall-K1 (talk) 03:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I feel forced to agree with User:Fgnievinski. As I discussed a few months ago in my post to WP:ANI/3RR, the situation has been uniformly frustrating for years now. User:RHB100 has an extremely narrow view of how the GPS article "should" be written, and primarily reinforces it by questioning the credentials and intelligence of his fellow editors. Additionally, he has shown very little interest in familiarizing himself with[REDACTED] policy or making any attempt to work with his fellow editors, insisting that they are not "licensed engineers", and has no regard for the uniform and consistent consensus against his narrow view. I have essentially stopped contributing to GPS, despite GPS being the main subject of my professional work, since it results in nothing but frustration and repetitive arguments over the same topic. siafu (talk) 03:14, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• I think this is the link to the 3RR report that siafu (talk · contribs) mentioned: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive285#User:RHB100_reported_by_User:Siafu_.28Result:_Voluntary_restriction.29. Fgnievinski (talk) 13:48, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I have engaged with other editors in debate after debate. I have the view that the GPS article should be written correctly and in accordance with good quality references. I have stated my own qualifications but I have never questioned the credentials and intelligence of other editors. My focus has been on the content and not on people. We should continue to remind ourselves what is wrong with the Misplaced Pages article since that is the first step toward improvement. RHB100 (talk) 04:15, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

"Never questioned the credentials and intelligence of other editors". Really. Just a couple examples: siafu (talk) 05:20, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and this just in: siafu (talk) 05:35, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I make no apologies for these statements, siafu. These are honest, objective, and true statements. There is nothing wrong with these statements. The section, Geometric Interpretation, in the GPS article involves using a reference to justify a statement which the reference in no way supports. It is quite proper to point out this misrepresentation. RHB100 (talk) 17:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

As you do not regret any of the offences below demonstrates your incivility and why your long-term violation of Misplaced Pages's conduct policy deserves a topic ban. Fgnievinski (talk) 03:01, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• "Well if you people say then you do not have the level of competence characteristic of a licensed Professional Engineer."

• "I hold advanced engineering degrees from both the University of Arkansas and UCLA. I am a licensed professional engineer. I know that I am right"

• "The fact that the equations in the Problem description are equations for spheres is certainly well known and should be obvious. Nevertheless, I have provided a detailed explanation of what should be obvious. Authors may not always point out that these equations are spheres but this is because it is obvious."

What these people are calling hostility is valid and much needed criticism of the GPS article. I am not criticizing people, I am criticizing a part of the article which is wrong. We should never censor valid criticisms of the article. If you check the references I have given rather than the expressions of resentment of siafu, Fgnievinski, and Kendall-K1, you will see that my criticisms are valid. My attitude is based on improving the content of the GPS article. These other editors are just expressing resentment over my criticisms. We need free and open criticism of the article on the talk page. RHB100 (talk) 04:33, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

It should be kept in mind that a situation can arise where one editor is right but is in the minority. There is such a thing as tyranny of the majority as pointed out by de Tocqueville. This is the thing that we are experiencing in this discussion where these other editors are trying to censor me just because I make valid and correct criticisms. This problem should be fought against by making sure we have the talk page open for valid criticism. RHB100 (talk) 04:47, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I think the folllowing list of archived talk sections, dating back to 2010, speaks for itself:

• Talk:Global Positioning System/Archive 6#WP is not a discussion forum
• Talk:Global Positioning System/Archive 6#Multidimensional Newton-Raphson for GPS - Can't make heads or tails of it
• Talk:Global Positioning System/Archive 6#Accusations that Multidimensional Newton-Raphson for GPS section violates Misplaced Pages policy are false
• Talk:Global Positioning System/Archive 7#Multidimensional Newton-Raphson calculations
• Talk:Global Positioning System/Archive 7#Undue weight on Bancroft
• Talk:Global Positioning System/Archive 7#Bancroft method made even more neutral, current reference retained, new may be added
• Talk:Global Positioning System/Archive 7#Basic operation
• Talk:Global Positioning System/Archive 7#Basic concept of GPS needs additional sourcing and explanation

and finally:

• WP:Wikiquette assistance/archive94#RHB100 (about questioning the credentials and intelligence of other editors)

Nothing seems to have changed: persistent orthogonality to wp:CONSENSUS. Unless he gets his way, RHB100 does not back off, so I tend to avoid both the article and its talk page. - DVdm (talk) 06:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

The example I looked at, from the list above, Talk:Global Positioning System/Archive 7#Multidimensional Newton-Raphson calculations, does not show this so-called persistent orthogonality to wp:CONSENSUS accusation that DVdm makes. I look at this and I see my remarks as quite reasonable. So DVdm own reference shows that I am engaging in rational and reasonable editing and that the above accusation of disruptive editing is false. RHB100 (talk) 20:35, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I have had disagreements with DVdm. He has accused me of doing personal research when I have merely stated the obvious. Some may have gotten a little contentious and the heated nature of the discussion may have resulted in some unflattering remarks. However, we should concentrate on what triggered the complaints. And that is my writing of the section, "Geometric interpretation section is a disaster" on the talk page of the GPS article.

Here is a copy of the "Geometric interpretation section is a disaster" section from the GPS article talk page. This is what triggered the accusation of disruptive editing. This is what we should be concentrating on. Now tell me, what is disruptive in this post? Keep in mind that critical editing in no way implies hostile or disruptive editing. Some editors may be slow to see what is obvious to me. This post contains new information showing false use of a reference. Tell me what is disruptive about this post? RHB100 (talk) 20:35, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• You don't follow the Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines, to start with. Fgnievinski (talk) 21:44, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, Fgnievinski, I have investigated your accusation that I do not follow the Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines. I read the Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines and I read the post below that I made on the talk page of the GPS article. I claim that I do follow the Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines completely. A criticism of a section of the article and pointing out that the GPS article can be improved by removing the section is not a hostile edit nor a personal attack on anyone. I am using the talk page in exactly the manner in which the Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines say the talk page should be used, to discuss how to improve the article. RHB100 (talk) 02:13, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

You don't even follow Help:Using talk pages#Indentation. Not to mention all the rest -- WP:TALK#OBJECTIVE, WP:MULTI, etc. Fgnievinski (talk) 02:31, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Fgnievinski, You make this trivial comment about this so-called not indenting. This shows just how pathetically trivial your complaints are. You fail to mention the dishonest use of a reference by some editor, possibly you, who refers to hyperboloids. RHB100 (talk) 20:59, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Geometric interpretation section is a disaster

The Geometric interpretation section is a disaster and should be removed. It would be more correctly titled if it were called the Geometric misinterpretation section. It looks like a forum for people to enter their favorite shape. All we need to have in the Navigation equations section is a statement of the equations to be solved as in the Problem description section and methods for solving these equations as in the Solution methods section. In the Spheres subsection of Geometric interpretation, there is a statement that the solution is at the intersection of three sphere surfaces. This is a completely misleading statement which is incompatible with the need for four or more spheres as concluded in the Langley paper and as we have tried to make clear in the Problem description section.

It is also stated in the paper, , that "GPS fixes are found as the point of intersection of four spheres centered on the satellites with radii given by the PRs corrected for user clock bias".

The Hyperboloids sub-section does not in any way enhance the understanding of GPS. The paper by Abel and Chaffee referenced does not even mention the word, hyperboloid, in any form. The Langley paper talks about the intersection of four or more spheres and does not mention hyperboloids.

For gaining an understanding of GPS, the concept of four dimensional spherical cones contributes nothing but instead only adds confusion. You don't need to know anything about four dimensional spherical cones to understand GPS and you should not waste your time on this unrelated topic. RHB100 (talk) 20:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC) . .

"We have discussed this several times already. See Talk:Global Positioning System/Archive 8. Kendall-K1 (talk) 20:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)"

Well what I have said before is absolute truth and what I say now is absolute truth. Although I clearly understand the incorrect and misleading nature of this section, there are some who don't seem to understand. I am here presenting the great disregard for honesty and integrity which characterizes the writing of this section. No one has ever presented good arguments why this section should be retained. I am a licensed professional engineer. I hold advanced engineering degree from both the University of Arkansas and UCLA. When you say, "We have discussed this", that is a very vague and ambiguous statement. There are several points that are made in what I have said above, you don't say whether you are talking about hyperboloids, three spheres, spherical cones or what. RHB100 (talk) 03:57, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

References

1. ^ Richard Langley, The Mathematics of GPS, , 1991
2. ^ Abel, J.S. and Chaffee, J.W., "Existence and uniqueness of GPS solutions", IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, vol:26, no:6, p:748-53, Sept. 1991.

Discussion

This looks a lot like WP:SYN and WP:TRUTH. There is substantial evidence of behavioural issues. A topic ban seems likely. Guy (Help!) 09:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Guy, you say a topic ban is likely. Based on what? I have done just what I have agreed to do. I have refrained from editing the article, without a clear consensus on the talk page, as I have agreed to do. I have concentrated on making clear and objective statements on the talk page in order to show what is wrong with the GPS article. I make an objective criticism of the GPS article on the talk page and you want to put in a topic ban for that. Look at the section "Geometric interpretation section is a disaster" on the GPS talk page and tell me what is wrong with that. This is honest and objective and correct criticism of the GPS article. My writing of that section is what triggered the complaint. You tell me what is wrong with that. RHB100 (talk) 17:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• In my exchanges with user RHB100 (s)he has often been rather insulting, not willing or able to actually discuss the matter on hand cooperatively and technically, and refusing to accept well sourced alternative views. −Woodstone (talk) 11:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Woodstone has consistently refused to engage in a reason based discussion. He has insisted on putting material on spherical cones which have nothing to do with GPS into the GPS article. He regards any disagreement with his views as insulting. He seems to be motivated by the desire to make the GPS article confusing. RHB100 (talk) 17:04, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Quote from the reference (my emphasis):

P4P is the pseudo-ranging 4-point problem as it appears as the basic configuration of satellite positioning with pseudo-ranges as observables. In order to determine the ground receiver/satellite receiver (LEO networks) position from four positions of satellite transmitters given, a system of four nonlinear (algebraic) equations has to be solved. The solution point is the intersection of four spherical cones if the ground receiver/satellite receiver clock bias is implemented as an unknown.

No more comment necessary. −Woodstone (talk) 17:59, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Well this is an obscure reference. The better quality references such as the Langley paper explain GPS clearly working with ordinary three dimensional spheres. Since it is explained quite clearly with three dimensional spheres there is certainly no need for these four dimensional spherical cones. It appears, Woodstone, is trying to make the article confusing as seems to be his habit. RHB100 (talk) 18:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• We're here to discuss user behaviour, not article content. Fgnievinski (talk) 20:23, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

References

1. Richard Langley, The Mathematics of GPS, , 1991

Fgnievinski, you complain about my edits on the talk page saying they are controversial. But edits on the talk page are quite often controversial and there is certainly nothing wrong with that. My post on the talk page of the section, "Geometric interpretation section is a disaster" is what triggered your complaint. But this is a valid criticism of the GPS article. Your attempt to stifle criticism of the GPS article is very harmful to Misplaced Pages. RHB100 (talk) 21:06, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Closure of RHB100 - GPS

• I now count three of us who have been driven away from the GPS article because of this. Is there some way to expedite a conclusion to this issue? Is there some more formal process we should pursue? Kendall-K1 (talk) 02:35, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• WP:CBAN says: "Sanction discussions are normally kept open for at least 24 hours... If the discussion appears to have reached a consensus for a particular sanction, an uninvolved administrator notifies the subject accordingly. The discussion is then closed..." I kindly request JzG (talk · contribs) to close the present discussion, as he/she seems to meet the requirements and has commented here before. Then if he/she is unavailable, it'd seem we could request closure at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#Administrative. Fgnievinski (talk) 03:21, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• I did briefly contribute to the discussion, and have been watching since, reluctant to get involved. I support the consensus proposals above. Burninthruthesky (talk) 09:41, 9 August 2015 (UTC); edited 06:21, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• I've taken the liberty of filling in a request at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. (There's some related material at User_talk:JzG#GPS Article.) Let's wait and see what the admins say about the strength of the consensus. Fgnievinski (talk) 21:23, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Good point. Thanks. Burninthruthesky (talk) 06:21, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Kendall-K1, I don't know what you are talking about here. But criticizing a section of the GPS article and proposing its removal so as to improve the article is the way the talk page should be used. I am very proud to be a licensed professional engineer and I am very proud that I hold advanced engineering degrees from both the University of Arkansas and UCLA. I know that I am well qualified and I know that the section, Geometric interpretation, in the GPS article is definitely incorrect and should be removed. My edits are good and I am very proud of that. RHB100 (talk) 03:13, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Examples from the talk page

Here are a few examples of things RHB100 has said on the article talk page after his voluntary restriction was imposed on 23 June:

"On the other hand if you want to degrade the GPS document make it less understandable, you may oppose the inclusion of this explanatory material. So let's find out who the good people are and who the enemies of Misplaced Pages are or otherwise explain your position."

"What you say, Fgnievinski, is idiotic nonsense... You don't have the competence to decide what will be taken and what will not. I don't believe you even possess a license to practice engineering."

"Siafu, if you want to be taken seriously on Global Positioning Systems, you need to go back and review the equations for a sphere in Analytic Geometry or elsewhere. Your comments indicate that you do not understand the equations of a sphere."

"I find your comment that the equations above do not represent spheres completely ridiculous. Do you actually believe that? ... It is absolutely mind boggling that you would make such a statement. Haven't you studied Analytic Geometry and Calculus?"

"We should devote our efforts to maintaining the superiority of the GPS article over the inferior GNSS article. GPS was developed by Americans using the money of American taxpayers. GPS shows American technical superiority in navigation and position finding. This should give us the incentive to maintain that same technical superiority of our GPS article over the GNSS article."

"Woodstone, nothing you are saying is of any value for the purposes of GPS, as far as I can tell. And it's certainly not interesting."

— Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:48, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

It is sometimes necessary to be honest and objective in discussions on the talk page. Several of these statements were made long before 23 June 2015. The honest and objective statement made to Woodstone was made after 23 June 2015 as was the statement about the superiority of the GPS article. The two paragraphs made to Siafu were long before 23 June 2015. According to Misplaced Pages guidelines that I have read, you are allowed to say that someone has made a stupid statement but not allowed to say that someone is stupid. I have followed Misplaced Pages guidelines in all cases. RHB100 (talk) 20:43, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Kendall-K1 is correct. These quotes are timestamped after the restriction of 23 June. Burninthruthesky (talk) 08:24, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Alright, this conversation with siafu was more recent than I recalled. I made the mistake of relying on memory rather than looking up the dates. But I think these remarks need to be put in context. Here is the context, "For n satellites, the equations to satisfy are:

${\displaystyle (x-x_{i})^{2}+(y-y_{i})^{2}+(z-z_{i})^{2}={\bigl (}c{\bigr )}^{2},\;i=1,2,\dots ,n}$

or in terms of pseudoranges, ${\displaystyle p_{i}=\left({\tilde {t}}-s_{i}\right)c}$, as

${\displaystyle {\sqrt {(x-x_{i})^{2}+(y-y_{i})^{2}+(z-z_{i})^{2}}}+bc=p_{i},\;i=1,2,...,n}$ .

Comparison of these equations with the Equations in R3 section of Sphere in which ${\displaystyle (x-x_{i})}$ corresponds to ${\displaystyle (x-x_{0})}$, ${\displaystyle (y-y_{i})}$ corresponds to ${\displaystyle (y-y_{0})}$, ${\displaystyle (z-z_{i})}$ corresponds to ${\displaystyle (z-z_{0})}$, and ${\displaystyle {\bigl (}c{\bigr )}}$ corresponds to ${\displaystyle r}$ shows that these equations are spheres as documented in Sphere.

Since the equations have four unknowns —the three components of GPS receiver position and the clock bias—signals from at least four satellites are necessary to attempt solving these equations. They can be solved by algebraic or numerical methods. Existence and uniqueness of GPS solutions are discussed by Abell and Chaffee. When n is greater than 4 this system is overdetermined and a fitting method must be used.

With each combination of satellites, GDOP quantities can be calculated based on the relative sky directions of the satellites used. The receiver location is expressed in a specific coordinate system, such as latitude and longitude using the WGS 84 geodetic datum or a country-specific system. RHB100 (talk) 18:27, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

References

1. section 4 beginning on page 15 GEOFFREY BLEWITT: BASICS OF THE GPS TECHNIQUE
2. "Global Positioning Systems" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on July 19, 2011. Retrieved October 15, 2010.
3. Cite error: The named reference Abel1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
4. Dana, Peter H. "Geometric Dilution of Precision (GDOP) and Visibility". University of Colorado at Boulder. Retrieved July 7, 2008.
5. Peter H. Dana. "Receiver Position, Velocity, and Time". University of Colorado at Boulder. Retrieved July 7, 2008.

This is essentially the exact same argumentation used before, and as before not only do the equations not, in fact, represent spheres, the sources you have cited also do not, in fact, claim that they do. siafu (talk) 22:17, 23 June 2015 (UTC)"

Here, siafu is saying that the above equations do not represent spheres which I find to be absolutely ridiculous. And I still don't know what in the world he could have been talking about. I can't understand why anybody with any kind of an engineering education would make such a statement. I then made the comments below. These comments in this context are certainly quite proper.

"Siafu, if you want to be taken seriously on Global Positioning Systems, you need to go back and review the equations for a sphere in Analytic Geometry or elsewhere. Your comments indicate that you do not understand the equations of a sphere."

"I find your comment that the equations above do not represent spheres completely ridiculous. Do you actually believe that? ... It is absolutely mind boggling that you would make such a statement. Haven't you studied Analytic Geometry and Calculus?" RHB100 (talk) 18:08, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

And this whole discussion seems to be aimed primarily at taking frank and honest comments out of context and pretending there is something terrible about being frank and honest. But telling someone they need to review Analytic Geometry is sometimes quite appropriate. But the more important aspect of human behavior, putting correct critiques and proposals for improving the article is ignored. No one has been able to point out anything wrong with the technical content of "Geometric interpretation section is a disaster" which I placed on the GPS talk page. RHB100 (talk) 18:24, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

RHB100 time too valuable for Misplaced Pages GPS article

I have decided that in view of the fact that all indications are that I am better educated and more professional being licensed as a professional engineer, my time is too valuable to spend further contributing to the Misplaced Pages article on GPS. The fact that other editors seem incapable of comprehending the fact that the section, Geometric Interpretation is a disaster and should be removed causes me to conclude that these people are not of the quality I want to continue to work with. I have been one of the primary authors of the section now called Problem description and I have written much of Error analysis for the Global Positioning System but now we have very hostile, highly disruptive editors working on GPS and I do not care to work with these kind of people. RHB100 (talk) 00:34, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for agreeing to impose upon yourself an article ban on GPS and its talk page, as kindly requested initially; your understanding is very much appreciated. fgnievinski (talk) 16:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of script page

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

How do I delete https://en.wikipedia.org/User:Iady391/monobook.js Iady391 | Talk to me here 15:47, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

 Done by Deor — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iady391 (talk • contribs) 16:58, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

This thread is followup to Misplaced Pages:Village pump (technical)#Delete a script page. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:14, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Standard offer for Technophant

Technophant (talk · contribs) is a blocked user whose talk page and email access were revoked. Technophant has requested restoration of talk and email privileges, so I'm bringing his appeal in front of the community per the offer's usual terms. I have a statement from Technophant:

I thought I had a right to ban users (including admins) from my talk page with notice and undo their edits. I am requesting that my talkpage access be restored after being removed on 16 November 2014 by Kww. I was under the mistaken impression had a right to ban users (User:Brangifer, User:GregKaye, and User:PBS} from my talk page and undo their edits.Since I was using the Undo feature by refreshing the revision history I did not see PBS's warning that I was violating WP:REMOVED. I've had a lengthy discussion with User:Adjwilley and he set me straight about this and realize now that I was wrong in my actions.

Also, I apologize for abusing the email system. I have had previous disputes with Brangifer and an informal IBAN negotiated through private emails. My message was inappropriate and I regret sending it.

Please add comments and recommendations below. APerson (talk!) 02:07, 9 August 2015 (UTC) (updated statement and request 02:14, 9 August 2015 (UTC) and again on 21:00, 10 August 2015 (UTC))

That's not the Standard Offer. Not opposed, I am not a huge fan of removing talk page access over removal of stuff. Guy (Help!) 19:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Fixed to clarify that we're not seeking the standard offer. APerson (talk!) 21:00, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• I'm fine with restoring TPA to appeal the block, but I don't see a reason to restore e-mail until a block appeal is successful. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
• Notifying @Bishonen: for any comments she may have, as hers is the most recent entry in the block log. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:08, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm somewhat open to letting them back under certain conditions:

• No personal attacks on other editors. Focus on content. Agree to disagree agreeably. AGF.
• Talk page problems should not happen again. User talk pages are for communication, and that includes communication from editors with which one may be in conflict elsewhere. Even if it's unpleasant, don't block communication by banning other editors from the page or removing their comments and warnings. Be open and discuss. Nothing is secret here. Editors do not have a right to privacy or to be left alone. That's the way we roll here. Don't call warnings and criticism "harassment".
• "Informal iban"? I got an email on 9/2/2014 which told me: "Ok well if you don't want to help then please just stay away from me. Informal iban. Stay off pages where I'm a lead contributor." There is no basis in Misplaced Pages policy, guidelines, or culture for taking such an order seriously. This is a form of ownership behavior.
• Technophant still has an indefinite topic ban which still applies.
• We don't want to see anymore socking problems. They must only use their registered account.

This should be a time limited probationary offer. A review of the editor's interactions during that time should happen before full reinstatement. There should be nothing but peaceful interactions during that time. It's possible to do this even when there are differences of opinion.

None of us is perfect. We have all been newbies, and we've all made mistakes and done things we regret. I hope this renewed attempt to get back in the saddle and ride better will succeed. I wish Technophant success. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:52, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support second chance. QuackGuru (talk) 02:56, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
• I agree with Guy, Technophant should have tpa and e-mail back. I hardly ever remove talkpage access myself, and if it's done, in the case of good-faith users it seems likely tpa can be restored once they've simmered down. The extent of my involvement here was to remove e-mail privileges, on request from Brangifer who had received an abusive e-mail (and who is supporting a second chance above). Technophant isn't requesting unblock and was blocked for serious reasons (socking), so I'm not addressing a potential second chance. I can see one down the road, though. Bishonen | talk 07:45, 11 August 2015 (UTC).

RfC closure review: Talk:Kosovo#Request for comment

I have started a closure review for Talk:Kosovo#Request for comment. The RfC was closed by Kingsindian (talk · contribs) on 5 August 2015 in response to an WP:ANRFC request. The close was hidden as a contested close by Red Slash (talk · contribs). There is discussion about the closure at Talk:Kosovo#Post RfC.

There is a re-closure request here at WP:ANRFC, where Red Slash wrote:

Administrators, is there any chance one of you could close this? A non-admin stepped into a really complicated RfC and kind of made a mess of closing it, and we really could use a full-on administrative close. Thank you.

But per the RfC at Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/Archive 12#Review:

On the question of whether an RFC close by a non-admin can be summarily overturned by an admin, in most cases, no, and never if the only reason is that the closer was not an admin.

Kingsindian put a lot of thought into his close. His close should not be summarily overturned by an admin. Therefore, I am taking the close here for review by the community.

Cunard (talk) 05:03, 10 August 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) 05:03, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Kinsindian did a good job on the close. I say leave it the way he closed it. KoshVorlon We are all Kosh 11:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Here is my version of events.

According to comments on the talk page, Red Slash thinks that my closure is vague and that it is a "supervote". I am not sure what he means by this. I explained my reasoning in detail, and my closure is unambiguous: consensus against option "#1" and consensus for option "#2 and #3", which I even clarified on the talk page. It is not a "supervote" in any form: I just assessed the consensus of a complicated discussion by looking at the arguments for all options, and determined that "#2 and #3" is the best (or the least bad).

As to the point about non-admin closure, my feeling is that Red Slash in not acquainted with policy here (especially since he asked for re-closure at WP:ANRFC instead of starting a closure review, as I advised on the talk page). As I explained to him before, there is nothing special in being an admin; any uninvolved editor can close RfCs, provided they explain themselves thoroughly. Please see WP:ANRFC (point 3). Kingsindian ♝♚ 13:24, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Kingsindian I think you wrote a very detailed closing, and I want to ask before assuming, did you find any consensus in that RFC, or just something close to consensus but not actually consensus? AlbinoFerret 13:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

@AlbinoFerret: I am not sure exactly what you mean, perhaps my last paragraph in the RfC close is not as unambiguous as I think it is. I definitely found that the consensus is against option #1. For the rest of the options, option "#2 and #3" came the closest, and in my judgement, was close enough to be considered consensus. I clarified this on the talk page here. Kingsindian ♝♚ 14:11, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I am another editor closer. I have found when a 50/50 question in my mind arises to just as the person to make sure. While I personally would not have touched this RFC with a ten foot keyboard cable, its a good close. Since the sock issue was cleared up, I dont see why an editor couldnt have closed it.AlbinoFerret 14:17, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

If I may be allowed to comment here, firstly - no disrespect to admins - but just as trained judges are not "superhumans", persons with admin status are not somehow better qualified to cast judgement than any third party uninvolved editors. I cannot help but think that the editor to request admin closure is using this track as a sneaky "appeal" because he personally disagrees with the decision of Kingsindian. Seeing the closing statement by Kingsindian, I see all the hallmarks of a good judge who read every comment and weighed through them to arrive at his rational conclusion. If he became an admin tomorrow I doubt he will have suddenly acquired new observation methods, we are all human beings. --Edin Balgarin (talk) 22:52, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

RfC for binding administrator recall

Hello. You are invited to comment at Misplaced Pages:Administrators/RfC for binding administrator recall, where a discussion regarding a process for de-sysopping is taking place. ~ Rob 05:39, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

This type of proposal is not what I would expect from an editor who arrived here two months ago. Thanks for your editing, but Misplaced Pages is not a students' debating club, i.e. debate should have a constructive purpose here and should not be done just for its own sake. There are at this time more than 10 different discussions going on, all on this and related subjects, including the BARC proposal, and none of them has any chance to get anywhere. I prefer to waste my time somewhere else. I suggest editors focus on content, both writing and cleaning up. Kraxler (talk) 13:18, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

That's a very unwelcoming response. Anyone can make proposals and anyone is free to ignore them, and focus on building content themselves. The fact that there are so many proposals seems to be an indication that there is widely-perceived issue worth addressing. - MrX 15:50, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

If you read Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for adminship#Too many proposals going on at once, you'll see that people are already making fun of the avalanche of proposals. Admin Mkdw calls it the "shotgun approach". It's becoming disruptive. Kraxler (talk) 17:08, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I could be wrong, MrX, but I think what Kraxler was suggesting by his/her original response is that it seems a little suspicious that such a new user would even know what an RfC is (I actually have no opinion on the RfC in itself, however). Erpert 23:59, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Two months is a pretty long time, actually. You don't have to be here for years to understand we have policies and guidelines (and we're not exactly a brand new website). I think that is pretty bad faith to assume anything other than they are starting a conversation. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 01:10, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

With two months tenure, the user is not even eligible to ask for the tools, so why start a discussion of means to remove them? As I said before, we need new content workers, and new admins, we do not need necessarliy new professional debaters. Kraxler (talk) 15:33, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Community ban discussion: Fnagaton

Fnagaton (talk · contribs · logs · block log)

Fnagaton is a long term Misplaced Pages user (8 years, 4000 edits) who I believe for the past 6 years has been using a sockpuppet account, Glider87 (talk · contribs) to game content disputes. I recently indef blocked the sock and gave Fnagaton a 30-day block. It's been suggested to me that I was too lenient, and that given the extent of Fnagaton's disruptive behavior he should be blocked indefinitely. I feel this is a question for the community, so I'm bringing it here. The sockpuppetry case can be found at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Fnagaton/Archive. Since Fnagaton seems to exclusively edit using proxies, a checkuser match was not possible, but I believe the behavioral evidence has no other explanation.

Details of Fnagaton's activities can be found at the SPI. In short, Fnagaton and his sock have spent years on-and-off tag-team edit warring and participating in the same discussions to distort consensus. Fnagaton and Glider87 have both appealed their blocks, and been denied. So what does everyone think? Someguy1221 (talk) 08:55, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Just took a look - looks like you weren't the only one thinking that, Omegatron thought so to and had Fnagaton linked to a different username (see the link to the sockpuppet investigations). If that's true, I'd say we have a potential sock farm, but yes, based on the evidence, the duck is strong with this one  :) KoshVorlon We are all Kosh 11:14, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Not sure what the best choice is, but you definitely made the right decision to come here following the suggestion to you. If the user hadn't caused any problems following the initial block, it would be a thoroughly bad idea for you to reblock for a longer time just because you and someone else thought perhaps you'd been too lenient; such an extension shouldn't be done without discussion. Nyttend (talk) 00:22, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for opening this case for further examinations. I believe the sock farm is more extensive than it even appears on the surface. It has been rather clear to me that Fnagaton is not the actual master, but just another sock. It clearly is a single purpose account which does not regularly edit WP on a steady basis, but springs into action when their pet project is effected, after months or year of hiatus. Clearly another account, the master, is regularly involved with WP providing the ongoing process of monitoring. Proving the extent will be arduous likely. The master, that I suspect, has been doing this kind of behavior for a long time and I believe I recently detected another instance in an other subject matter. Accusing someone publicly is of course a serious matter, so I have remained silent, and given the amount of energy required to engage with those accounts is discouraging even trying. Of course this appears to be a rather skillful strategy of those accounts. Let me just say, that everyone (to be fair to all) who ever participated in the subject matter of binary prefixes in the last eight years or so should be subject to investigation, especially since MOSNUM policy has been effected by these socks. However, that subject is not the only one effected. For starters, getting Fnagaton eliminated is a step in the right direction. The amount of editor time and energy that has been wasted by his flagrant, egregious, toxic behavior is staggering, as only the recent talk page battles and article space reverting history exemplifies. I have tried to stay out of the mess as much as possible, refusing to engage with this account's activities, which are a never-ending spiral of circular arguments that never result in meaningful progress, or even sensible dialog. A 30-day ban is utterly too little too late for the amount of damage caused. Kbrose (talk) 13:04, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Over the years I had some dealings with user Fnagaton and his 'friends', but concluded that no meaningful interaction is possible with such a single track mind. He manufactured a consent that in my eyes never existed to ban the IEC binary prefixes outright. How is it possible to ignore such officially recognised unambiguous units in an encyclopedia? It is some kind of mind police, completely unbefitting WP. −Woodstone (talk) 15:21, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Personally, if we have an established user who turns out to have been sockpuppetting, a warning block of the master and an indef for the sock is probably the way to go. The user should be warned, though, that next time (s)he's caught, things will be worse. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:04, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

As history shows, we are seriously past this juncture in this case already. Kbrose (talk) 12:12, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

New admin needs advice from admins

Howdy. A while back I was involved in an RfC at Balochistan, Pakistan. I have no personal interest in anything having to do with this region, country, neighboring countries, etc—I was there solely in my capacity as a gnome. Two SPAs sprang up and were stonewalling any additions to the article about poverty, insurgencies and human rights violations. The conversation then traveled to Balochistan where these users started stonewalling again. I noticed these editors also editing at Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. An edit war bloomed, and I fully protected the page to cool the edit war down, and I removed the unsourced section on language, which seemed to be the focus of the problem. An attractive nuisance as they say. Since then, one of the editors has started a forum-shopping campaign accusing me of bias. Okay, blah blah blah, it's not my first rodeo with that accusation. During the edit war, a disputed map kept popping up, for instance here on the talk page. That map was uploaded to commons by Maria0333, who (you ready?) was a sockpuppet of this guy. So naturally I'm even more suspicious than I was before of sock/meatpuppetry.

Since I'm a new admin, I'm very sensitive to avoid violating WP:INVOLVED. However, I feel I need some real-world experience understanding what is and what isn't considered "involved". I'd like to know if it is okay for me to continue administrating in this area even if I'm being accused of bias. I'm likely to pursue an SPI case. Also, I'd like to know whether or not the disputed map should be removed from Commons because it was uploaded by a sock operator. Thanks, and if there's any advice that you can give that I didn't specifically ask for, I'm all ears. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:44, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Update: I just noticed that one of the users, Zmaghndstakun was just slapped with a 3 month topic ban on India, Pakistan and Afghanistan by Ceradon. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:47, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• Hi Cyphoidbomb. Absent a request on the talk page which has consensus, it is not usually okay for admins to modify articles that are fully protected. The major exception to that is BLP violations, which does not apply in this case. I'm assuming this is a "new admin" error, and you can revert yourself. That would be my only suggestion at this point, other than directing all of the users to discuss on the talk page of the article. Risker (talk) 16:52, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate the edification, Risker, thank you. Do you have any thoughts about what should be done with the sockpuppet map? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:38, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Take it up with Commons; they are a separate project that has different rules. When I look at the history of that map there, it seems there's been some dispute about it there too. It's the reality of dealing with maps of regions with disputed territories. In the meantime, you've made a rather serious content decision here, which is outside the scope of the protecting administrator. I disagree with FPAS on this issue. Did someone not tell you about the New Admin Training Wheels Program, also known as "don't mess around in contentious areas for the first few weeks"?  ;-) Risker (talk) 18:59, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• It's certainly an unconventional step, but in this particular case I'd endorse it. We typically grant protecting admins the discretion to not simply protect whatever "wrong version" is uppermost, but, if appropriate, to revert to the most recent pre-dispute clean version. In this particular case, however, given the long history of problematic editing and the truly obscene amount of sockpuppetry rampant in the entire topic domain, there is very likely no "clean" version anywhere near in the history of the article, so a reasonable application of WP:IAR may well be to not select any one prior version as the "cleanest", but to remove the entire disputed (and evidently problematic) passage. That said, bear in mind that the topic area is covered by discretionary sanctions, so if editors act up like these two, probably the best thing to do even before it comes to this level of edit-warring is simply to topic-ban the lot of them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, Fut.Perf. If I've previously had a disagreement with these users, does that make me involved? The disputes at Talk:Balochistan, Pakistan are mostly the extent of it, and it never really even got heated on my side. I did have to warn one of the users, Zmaghndstakun on his talk page to stop adding !votes to the RfC. I sort of need to know the threshold between participating as an editor, and when I need to use my admin tools to solve a problem. I would hate to topic ban these editors, be accused of bias, and have my peers find that I violated WP:INVOLVED and blocked the users in retaliation. As I've researched the matter, I found that the disputed language content at Khyber Pakhtunkhwa was originally added by Cojamel, a sockpuppet of LanguageXpert circa 2013, the same editor who uploaded the disputed map I mentioned above. Naturally I suspect these other editors to be likely socks of the same person and I'm pursuing an SPI. Thanks for any more help you can provide. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:44, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:INVOLVED: "One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area." One time, I believe I blocked an editor for repeatedly removing an unresolved {{Citation needed}} tag that I had originally added. The editor appealed, and the reviewing admin unblocked and stated that I was involved. Definitiely be cautious of INVOLVED, but it's also important that you are honestly trying to do the right thing, which you appear to be. Maybe it comes with experience on when to apply it, but sometimes you just got to be bold and do the right thing, and if need be, ask for forgiveness later.—Bagumba (talk) 21:27, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment One suspected sock was determined via CU by Ponyo to very likely be related to the sockmaster. The other suspected sock was determined to be very likely be a meatpuppet operating with LanguageXpert/Zmaghndstakun. Sooo, the experienced gnome instinct prevails. Still, very appreciative to those who cared to comment and edify me above. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:15, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Could someone answer to user to this question in my talk page

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

]--Musamies (talk) 15:21, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Indo-Pak sock war

There is currently an ongoing sock-war between editors involved in the Indo-Pak dispute with numerous socks of (potentially) Nangparbat, KnightWarrior25, Mrpontiac1, Darkness Shines, Jyotirmoy25 involved. There are dozens of IPs involved, which are not even worth listing (see editing history of Indo-Pakistani Air War of 1965, Indo-Pakistani War of 1947 etc for example) . A few named accounts are:

• SUMANTHARKI (talk · contribs)
• ShivaParvati587 (talk · contribs)
• Pakistani randi female (talk · contribs)
• Jyotirmoy250989 (talk · contribs)
• Rumanfurki (talk · contribs)

Some of these (like the Jyoti account) are ducks and can be blocked as such. For others sockpuppetry is obvious, but identifying the exact sockmaster would require us to wait for further behavioral evidence, which means allowing for greater disruption to continue in the meantime. And the above list is likely just the tip of the iceberg. So posting here to see to see if some CUs can help out (there are 2-3 related SPI cases currently open, with mainly rival sock armies participating). And admins help to identify and semi-protect the affected paged. Pinging Thomas.W (talk · contribs) who may be able to identify other accounts, or affected pages. Abecedare (talk) 17:15, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Give 'em enough rope

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

I've nominated Misplaced Pages:Give 'em enough rope, which many who frequent this page love to reference, for deletion here. Alakzi (talk) 13:28, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I snow closed the MfD, and I point you to WP:NACD where it says "Participants, including participating administrators, should not reopen non-admin closures." Kraxler (talk) 15:29, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Give administrators the right to appoint off-wiki, in-person community spokespeople

Sorry for the sensational title, but that is mostly correct.

A week ago I posted on this board asking people to comment at Misplaced Pages:Education_noticeboard#Proposal_to_allow_administrators_grant_education_extension_userrights. I am seeking more comments.

There is a Misplaced Pages:Education program. In that program there are WP:Course coordinators userrights. Administrators have the technical right to grant these, but historically, these userrights have been governed by participants in that program. Right now that program is unable to manage these userrights, and I would like to divest their management to administrators along with the people who already have userrights to grant them.

The title references the likelihood that people with these userrights commonly speak with off-wiki organizations as Wikimedia community representatives in establishing partnerships. A typical case is a Wikipedian inviting a class to edit Misplaced Pages. There should be a little oversight of this and by default, I wonder if the future of these userrights should go to administrators. Please form your own opinion and comment. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:36, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Advice about length of a topic ban, please?

I really wanted to put this on WP:AE or WP:ARCA, but those pages seem to be constrained by various straightjackets (=templates), "you must use this format", etc, so here I am. I recently topic-banned Thomas Paine1776 (talk · contribs) from Donald Trump and related pages for twelve months for persistent tendentious editing, in the sense of removing well-sourced critical/negative material. I'm not really in doubt about the appropriateness of this ban, as BLPs should no more be whitewashed than they should be negatively slanted, but I've realized the length, twelve months, may not be ideal under the circumstances. Some background diffs:

• 11 July 2015: my warning
• 27 July 2015: the topic ban
• 28 July 2015: Thomas Paine's appeal on my page, and my response

I follow American politics somewhat, but I'm pretty clueless about chronology and timelines, and I've only just realized that the 2016 Republican Convention, where Donald Trump has announced that he'll be a presidential candidate, will be held 18–21 July, 2016. That's in eleven months and three weeks from now… which suddenly makes my choice of twelve months for Thomas Paine's topic ban look pointy, or even cruel. (Not being aware of the convention date originally, I only picked twelve months as a nice round number.) I'm having trouble making up my mind. Should I shorten Thomas Paine's ban to ten months, or even six? Or is it on the contrary ideal as it is? Your wise input would be appreciated. Bishonen | talk 14:30, 28 July 2015 (UTC).

Generally topic bans from significant future events should be timed until after said event takes place - as at that point disruption/interest should naturally tail off. Intentional or not, a 12 month ban which expires just after July 2016 seems perfectly fine. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:18, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Totally agree with Only in death , he was warned, he chose to ignore it, now he has a ban. No need to shorten it, it's fine, Bishonen. KoshVorlon We are all Kosh 15:50, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

So far, Thomas Paine1776 has queried the ban at User talk:Bishonen#Sanctions way too harsh. If that's his best argument, I don't yet see a case for lifting or reducing the ban. Bishonen might agree to listen to an appeal of the ban after three months, if during that time he shows some ability to edit neutrally about American politics. For him to remove critical stuff from Trump's page with no talk discussion or edit summary isn't very impressive. You have already mentioned his practice of removing any messages from his own talk that he doesn't like. It creates the impression that he expects blowback from his edits but plans to ignore it ("..certain editors attempting to just post flags on my page which seems to be a 'pattern' or tactic to achieve their editing goals..") His argument that he didn't notice you were an administrator doesn't cut much ice. A promise to follow consensus in the future would be more credible. EdJohnston (talk) 16:24, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Ed. If Tom can demonstrate neutral editing (including not removing well-sourced content) over the next three or six months, the ban can be shortened or lifted. It's up to him. Miniapolis 21:29, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Unarchived. User in question wanted a chance to contribute to the discussion. Jenks24 (talk) 18:53, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

This sanction doesn't seem fair. General edit warring sanctions seem to be only a few days. Seems like this sanction was more taking sides in a content dispute on the spur of the moment, especially given that its a popular current event. The warning seemed, at the time, like another editor posting their warnings in a row as a 'tactic' to achieve editing goals as explained previously. Other editors routinely remove info from BLP and some post overly with an unduly negative tone which is not neutral in the Trump article and campaign topics. BLP topics are supposed to be careful of potentially libelous info, so removing the unduly negative edits in question was an effort have a neutral tone.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 18:15, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Request Semi-Protection

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

at Lenore_Skenazy. Recent vandalism. SPECIFICO talk 02:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

• SPECIFICO,  Done. In the future though, please report requests for page protection to a more proper venue. Cheers, --ceradon (talk • edits) 02:48, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Backlog on AIV

Just wanted to alert folks to a backlog on WP:AIV. Currently 19 entries. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:54, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Administrative backlog