Misplaced Pages

In an apparent effort to collect "credit" for creating articles, Captain Assassin rushes to create redirects and articles, apparently merely copying info from IMDb. Palo Alto (2013 film) was created with one (and only one) source which directly and specifically stated that the collection of stories ("Palo Alto") was expected to be made into three films, none of which are named "Palo Alto" and none of which are likely to be released in 2013. The Winter Queen (2014 film) was created as a redirect with the target only stating that filming was expected to begin in 2011 (with 2010 sources); the IMDb page likely used has now been deleted. Just Before I Go was created as a nonsensical redirect to the director. Faced with the possible deletion of the redirect, Captain created an article based on one (and only one) source that only knows of the project as "Hello I Must Be Going". In general (supporting my IMDb as the only source theory) his film articles include substantial lists of names not found in any other source (seriously: where else do you find the editor's name when the film has just started filming?). In addressing this issue, Captain says, essentially, that he plans to find sources for the information he adds after adding it. In short, it seems Captain is frequently here to collect "credit", not to build an encyclopedia. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:49, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• I've just read the editor's talk page, and I think the problem goes well beyond creating bizarre redirects and unsourced articles about possible future films. I don't think a topic ban is going to cut it here, the real problem is a total lack of competency. I would support a topic ban if that's as far as folks are willing to go, but I'm afraid the real solution is an indef block until this editor shows some sign of understanding how things work, and how he can edit productively. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:28, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Wow, what a good idea of indefinite block, am I doing wrong now? Redirects and unsourced problems are solved already, I'm not doing that again. Now the problem is moving articles or redirects, well you can have my word and see for the next time. There will be nothing gone of you if you'll just give me some time and see if I do it again. -- Assassin! No, Captain Assassin! 05:39, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll be very pleased if you show me to be wrong. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:27, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll show you to be wrong, just give me time to show my improvements. -- Assassin! No, Captain Assassin! 09:46, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

He could probably do with tidying up his signature a bit too. 529 characters to sign and date a post (especially when the I'll show you to be wrong, just give me time to show my improvements. comment is just 69 characters long). Nick (talk) 13:18, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• I'm certainly going to support an indef, having looked at this. Captain Assassin's behaviour is flat-out wrong, and needs to stop, permanently. Moving around articles on your whim, and copy-paste moves to try and gain credit is bang out of order, and this is not what Misplaced Pages is for. Add in the inappropriate new articles you've created, and we're left with an editor who is clearly WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, but is here to attention seek, by any means possible. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:26, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

How is my behavior flat-out wrong now? What am I doing now, I'm just saying that I'll show myself improved if you just give me some time and see. Is there anything wrong in saying that? -- Assassin! No, Captain Assassin! 16:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• Capt. Assassin - recommend you post on the Film Project talk page to get other users opinions on page moves. For example, you recently moved Belle (2013 film) to Belle (2014 film), which I believe you did in good faith. I've moved it back, per WP:FILMRELEASE (the Toronto premiere makes it a 2013 film). Please read the FILMRELEASE guide I've linked to, and if in doubt, please head to the Film Project for futher clarity. The same with the redirects too. Thanks! Lugnuts 19:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you Lugnuts, I'll discuss the films related topics there next time. -- Assassin! No, Captain Assassin! 22:57, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• • No probs. Rather than all this topic ban nonsense, I purpose a simple "do not move/do not create redirects" until futher notice. Captain Assassin has done some great work expanding articles and I think this is a bit heavy-handed (I can't see a previous ANI about the same issue). For page moves, if in doubt either go to the film project or log a request at requested moves. For redirects, there's no need to create them as they would fail WP:NFF and will be speedily deleted in any case. Of course, if you are actually starting a new notable article, that is fine. Any of the people who brought this to ANI disagree? Thanks. Lugnuts 06:26, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks again Lugnuts, but look, I'll not move any redirect or film page until I noticed you but creating redirects is another problem. Because if I'm willing to create an article (as example an adaptation) later so if I have reliable sources at the target and the film is in development so I should have created the redirect, what do you think of that? Sorry if I'm wrong but I think WP:NFF is for future films articles but I'm not creating the articles until principal photography or filming begin, I'm just saying for the creation of redirects to make them article later when filming begin. -- Assassin! No, Captain Assassin! 15:49, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing in Misplaced Pages:Redirect which appears to justify creating a redirect for a subject that doesn't meet notability guidelines. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:01, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes and there is a thing in that to create the redirects to the sections of other articles if we need it, so I think redirects can be created if they meet notability, like I said I will only create the redirects when target articles have reliable sources and proper evidence of the redirected article and then it is a significant redirect to wait to be created into a good and expanded article later. And its just redirects man, everyone creates the redirects some have been caught ( like me :), kidding ) and others fled, it's just the matter of time. -- Assassin! No, Captain Assassin! 16:54, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Per the last comment, I would say that at minimum, any topic ban on Captain Assassin! needs to unequivocally include a complete ban on creation of any redirects. This contributor is self-evidently obsessed with 'getting in first', and such an attitude can only be to the detriment of the project. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:10, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I would agree completely with the fact that any topic ban will need to include a complete ban on creation of any redirects. Unfortunately, I cannot see Captain Assassin! being able to follow through with this. From his comments above, he clearly is not interested in agreeing to such a ban. From the conversations he has had with User:Rossami and User:SummerPhD on his talk page, he has gone back on his word to not create redirects without proper sources many times. For that reason, for his recent comments above, and his history of wanting to get "credit" for everything, I think the encyclopedia would benefit if he was permanently blocked. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 20:15, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the evidence doesn't look too good in CA's favour. This redirect was created in the last 24hrs (IE while this discussion was ongoing) with the edit summary "Film is not started filming or production yet so redirect to its main article". The main article states " was still in the works however likely would follow Terminator 5, which is due for release in 2015". Hardly grounds for creating a meaningful redirect of any real use. Lugnuts 11:47, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not saying that I'm always going to create redirects, I'm just saying that I'll only create some redirects with high notability. I'm not fighting and doing anything harm to you or Misplaced Pages, I'm just asking for it to let me do it just a few which I will create and expand later. I'll create redirects like 50 or 100 a moment or in a month, I'll only create which have to be created (like novel and musical adaptations with production information at their targets. I'm asking it very politely, if you are thinking I'm in bad mood or I'm a angry person, well I'm not. I'm agree with you all but about redirects I'm just asking for it because everyone here in Misplaced Pages is allow to create them, so should I. I've learned so much in this discussion but I want to help Misplaced Pages. If you just think a little that a redirect will take us to the target where information of that redirected article is available with pure reliable sources and this thing is also an Admin said to me to put information about the redirected article at the target with sources then create the redirect. I'm not talking about credits here, I'm talking about rules. There are no rules to not create the redirects, if you want to ban me you should ban completely creating redirects so no one will create redirects in future. And again (specially to you Logical Fuzz), I'm not a bad guy or a rude if you are thinking of that, I'm a very politely talking and kind heart person in my real life and I'm not talking rude here too. And as above User:Lukeno94 said about my behavior, I never get angry even if someone beat me hardly so how would I behave rude or my behavior could be wrong. I'm just a animation student with full of sorrows and grieves who is looking for happiness in real life. I never hurt a person real life how can I harm or destroy encyclopedia, I don't want to. I'm nothing in here, I've made mistakes and still making perhaps, so do everyone (if not now sometimes in the past). I like very much to help encyclopedia even I tell everyone around me (my friends) to use it and help it by editing, I'm a fast learner and I don't do the thing again if someone stopped me to not to do (even in my real life) but this redirect thing is just making me crazy, you now why if you have just saw me editing or working here you all can see that I've mostly worked on stub creating, I mean I love to create stub articles, I love to start them and see others expanding them. It's not like I want credits, once I wanted it when I moved some redirects mentioned above but when I got here in this discussion I swore not to do that again. You are not thinking clearly or perhaps not understanding me clearly, don't mind I'm just saying, I think I wrote something which teased you or I don't know...which showed you or made you think that my behavior is rude but seriously I'm very polite talking. I don't know why I want to create redirects so much perhaps for stub creating as I told. You can see my whole editing history or ask Mr. User:Bgwhite or User:Mar4d, I'm really very interested in creating stubs and I had always in past. So I'm just asking/saying please don't ban it, it helps to create history in editing of that article which I think also benefits Misplaced Pages. Or if, if you want to ban it then I'll suggest ban it permanently in Misplaced Pages so no one should create them (if you think redirects are harmful to encyclopedia). And in last this blocked thing, I don't think Misplaced Pages wants a user blocked who is editing a lot (if not a lot then a few but it is something), so I don't want to be blocked at any price but I've told you my problems and solutions as well in this comment. I don't know what you all are thinking but I'm not being rude to anyone, once I was angry only with User:Rusted AutoParts but I forgave him after that and I apologize to him now. You all should know that I'm a Muslim and we are very good in forgiving (if not everyone, I'm), our religion wants peace and we are peaceful. Today is our Eid al-Fitr holiday celebrations, this is a great celebration day for all Muslims, I'll just say Allah bless you all with great happiness :). Please don't think I'm involving the religion in this, it's just because today is a big day for us. By the way Lugnuts, I thought you were helping me in this condition of mine Twins 2 is the title in development announced by actor, is it wrong seriously?. So the decision is up to you all, I'm nothing guys but I'm just wanting to help it because I love Misplaced Pages and I told this to everyone around me when they make joke of me editing it (personally I want to edit it and edit and edit and edit it like always :) ). -- Assassin! No, Captain Assassin! 15:24, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• Considering the above, I repeat my suggestion of a WP:CIR block rather than a topic ban. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:56, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• I also repeat my comment. Captain Assassin is either trolling, is otherwise choosing to ignore the concerns raised by everyone in this thread, or simply doesn't understand what is going on. Either way, their wall of text is a clear sign that they're a net negative. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:32, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• I just don't know what to say now really, I'm feeling very sorry for my last comments above. Just do what you want to do, I'm on my kneels now. Or let's negotiate it in better ways if someone here is good in that or bring someone here. -- Assassin! No, Captain Assassin! 15:34, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I've known Assassin since he first started. For full disclosure, I do consider him a friend around here. I've personally never seen Assassin do any trolling or ignore concerns. He does however have trouble understanding. Assassin's current actions are vary similar to when he first started. It took a bit, but Kudpung and I finally "knocked" some sense into him. I'm not sure if it a language barrier or cultural differences or.... I can see two solutions.

1. Before any page move or redirect created, he asks somebody first. After a bit of time, Assassin will understand what constitutes a good or bad page move. I am willing to be the person to help him out, however this is not my area of expertise. If Assassin does move a page or create a redirect without asking first, he should have a page move and redirect ban placed.
2. Place a page move and redirect ban now. But, not a permanent one.

I would, of course, favour option #1. Beyond My Ken said, "...real solution is an indef block until this editor shows some sign of understanding how things work, and how he can edit productively." I don't think one can get an "understanding how things work" without one showing him how in a non-adversarial setting. Bgwhite (talk) 00:41, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

• Its a good idea what Bgwhite recommends, ask someone first before creating a redirect or moving a page, if I was doing wrong or I'm doing wrong I think I'll understand the problems and errors what I was doing in the past. I've learned from Bgwhite so much, he helped me a lot and I respect him and all of you here but I'll suggest to give me time first and let me go on the good way. Eventually you'll see my improvement, I can guarantee that. -- Assassin! No, Captain Assassin! 05:35, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
• So the solution is simple - don't make redirects and discuss page moves first (ideally with the film project)? Yes? This is the way forward for everyone, right? Lugnuts 08:27, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

• I would suggest, having read the entire screed, that CA be mentored actively to ensure that he understands. During this period we can expect a decreasing volume of errors. However, if the willingness he expresses to ask first shows signs of weakening, and if the behaviour of poor moves et al reappears, the community should take a further view. Fiddle Faddle 08:36, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, I'm 100% agreed with Lugnuts, I'll not create redirects and I'll discuss moves at Film project talk. And as Bgwhite said to ask first, I'll ask someone for further moves and redirects. -- Assassin! No, Captain Assassin! 09:25, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

How can we know you're being truthful? In all of the previous discussions on your actions, you said you'd comply with what the editor asked you to do and then not do it. You had been warned numerous times not to and yet continued. You even kept doing it during the course of this conversation. Until I see it for myself, I don't think I can believe you. Rusted AutoParts 16:02, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

• I'm giving my word you believe it or not it's not in my hand, by the way don't mind RAP but you are also a terrible redirects creator and mover as you did with Into the Woods (film). But I've made mistakes and I admit it and from now I will do after discuss it with someone. -- Assassin! No, Captain Assassin! 16:54, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

How can someone be terrible at creating redirects? Into the Woods is another example of your recklessness. You moved it so you could own it, it was deleted, I recreated it, then you took it again, and again was deleted. Even if Lugnuts or BG stand in your corner, there is still quite a few people who feel it best to remove you from the project. And considering our history, I feel it's for the best as well. Rusted AutoParts 17:02, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

If you are trying to make me angry now RAP, then you are going to fail but for your information, Bgwhite and Lugnuts are only helping and doing what is best for all, they aren't emotional decision makers like you. At-least I don't abuse editors here like you did and its just the articles moving problem which will be solved soon with good and best reason. -- Assassin! No, Captain Assassin! 05:16, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I've advised Assassin to stay away from movies for a few months and work on something else. Unfortunately, looks like Assassin has worked on movies the past few days. Assassin, could you stop. At the bare minimum, it's not a good idea to work on movies while your movie edits are under question. Unless I missed something, I don't see any page moves or redirects created for a few days.

Rusted AutoParts (like your name), from Assassin's and your talk page, it looks like you and him have had some "fun" for awhile. You two clearly can't play together. It's almost to a point where an interaction ban between you needs to be put in place. Rusted, you should walk away.

Assassin are you willing:

1. To not make ANY redirects or page moves without asking Lugnuts, me or someone acceptable by all parties.
2. You must ask until Lugnuts, me or someone acceptable by all parties feels you understand the procedures and are able to do redirects and page moves correctly.
3. Doing ANY redirect or page move without asking will result in a ban from making these kinds of edits. The length of the ban will be up to the admin.

Assassin, I have a feeling Rusted will be watching your edits. Bgwhite (talk) 09:16, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not making any moves and redirects now, just working on films (which I think I'm doing good now, if there is any problem tell me please). And Bgwhite YES I'm agreed with you on your conditions. I'll not make any redirect or move without asking you, Lugnuts or someone other. And let RAP watch my edits, I don't have to afraid of him when I'll be doing good. -- Assassin! No, Captain Assassin! 10:11, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not trying to get you angry, I'm merely inputting my opinion on the situation. And it's really not helping when you constantly WP:Assume bad faith on my part. It's not as simple as giving him conditions to abide by. He had been messaged by several editors requesting he cease with his actions and he didn't. My final say in this is simply don't expect to be let off the hook so easily. I won't be watching your edits, the only edits I will see of yours are the contributions you make to the articles in my watch list. I don't abuse editors, I make it known what they're doing is wrong. I only get frustrated when they continue what they're doing, which is unfortunately what you're doing. Rusted AutoParts 15:13, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry RAP but I was doing and don't get frustrated now we should be good to each other if we want to help Misplaced Pages and each other. -- Assassin! No, Captain Assassin! 01:34, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

• I have also had similar (but not identical) issues with this editor in the past. See User talk:Captain Assassin!/Archive 10#Film redirects and Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 47#Creating redirects to future films. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:28, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Just saw Lugnuts and Betty Logan's talk pages. This needs a resolve now. Rusted AutoParts 15:55, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

• Yep. That only makes me reiterate my call for an indef - I'm utterly unconvinced by Captain Assassin's level of competence. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:14, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

• My next move will be to levy a long block on Captain Assassin. I'm loth to do an indef, unless (1) someone is pretty blatantly abusing the wiki, e.g. vandalism or spamming or copyvios, or (2) someone repeats disruptive behavior after an initial long block. Should Captain Assassin return from this block and continue the disruption, an indefinite block will quickly be in order. Nyttend (talk) 01:16, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

• I just read his unblock request and subsequent discussion and maybe I'm missing something but I can't make heads or tails of it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:58, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

• I can't completely understand what he's saying, either; I've done my best, but it's difficult. As I told him, his unblock request and discussion make me even more solidly convinced that he's either unable or unwilling to participate in a useful manner. Nyttend (talk) 03:29, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

• From my reading, it appears that he believes that Bgwhite set up some conditions for CA's editing so as not to be blocked, and CA believes that he has followed those conditions. The problem for me is this doesn't seem to be exactly confirmed from the discussion on Bgwhite's talk page, and Bgwhite himself has said that he would block CA if he did certain things. Also, CA has on a number of occasions during the course of this thread pledged not to do something specific, and has then gone on to do something related, but not the exact specific thing, or to be disruptive in another manner entirely. I'm fairly certain that a language barrier is a major part of the problem, accounting for the WP:IDHT-quality of any discussion with CA, but there also seems to be an unwillingness on CA's part to untangle what he doesn't understand. These are reasons why I thought a WP:CIR block was a reasonable step, but it has to be said that, at some point, the unwillingness or inability to understand and communicate becomes indistinguishable from deliberate trolling. WP:AGF would have us give CA the benefit of multiple doubts, but it looks to me that he may have run out of rope, and should retire to edit his native language's Misplaced Pages, if there is one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:00, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

• @Nyttend: @Beyond My Ken: Yes, CA does believe correctly that I set up conditions for CA's editing.
• The disruption deals with the film Fifty shades of Grey. Original history of Fifty Shades of Grey (film). Revision history of Fifty Shades of Grey (2014 film) that I moved to Fifty Shades of Grey (film)
• I think this is the order of events:

1. In May, CA created a redirect of Fifty Shades of Grey (film) to the book.
2. On August 12, Vintage Feminist created the article Fifty Shades of Grey (2014 film) from a userspace draft via AfC.
3. On August 14 at 20:53 pm, CA copied the (2014 film) article to (film) article.
4. Also at 20:53, CA deleted the (2014 film) article and made a redirect to point to the (film) article.
5. At 21:00, CA contacted Vintage Feminist telling about an article that was already there and CA would have the histories merged.
6. At 21:03, CA reverted himself on both articles.
7. At 21:08, CA contacted Lugnuts about what he did. The conversation.
8. At 21:12, CA contacted me about what he did.
9. In the end, whatever motives CA had, what he was trying to do ended up being the final results.

• CA did not live up to the conditions as CA did do a redirect. While he didn't technically do a move, this is essentially what he was trying to do. CA did reverse himself and told Lugnuts and I before anybody noticed. CA did contact the original author of the article and talked about a history merge.
• My impression was he goofed, probably out of hold habits. He did reverse course before anybody noticed and because of this, I did not block him, but did say I would next time.
• Six month ban is an extreme in this case. I don't believe there was any ill intentions or out to seek glory. He did alert when he realized he goofed up. He did contact Vintage Feminist and told them correctly what should happen. Unless I've missed something, I don't see any other problems with his contributions over the past few days. He did violate the conditions, so if a ban should be enacted, I see one in the 2-4 week range. An interaction ban between Rusted AutoParts and CA should also happen. Both of them can't play with each other. Rusted has already been banned for edit warring and fear both will be banned again if they don't stop. Bgwhite (talk) 06:45, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't quite see what a six month block will accomplish either. If it is a competence issue, then it's not going to make him more competent in that time, so we just delay the problem rather than address it. Page moves are clearly best left to people who know what they are doing, and Captain Assassin clearly doesn't. There are two realistic options here as I see it, you either indefinitely block him, or you topic ban him from: i) creating articles/redirects ii) moving articles iii) cutting and pasting between articles iv) renaming/split/merge discussions i.e we need to totally remove him from this particular area. Personally I don't think we should exercise the first option unless we try the second first, and then we can observe his competence in other areas of Misplaced Pages. Betty Logan (talk) 07:03, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

As I said above, indefinite blocks should be for those who are blatantly abusing the wiki or for those who have already failed to improve despite substantial amounts of time blocked. This isn't blatant vandalism or copyvios, and Assassin previously had only a twelve-hour block. This is basically a two-part solution: either it's the warning that scares him into caring about our standards, or it's the warning that demonstrates that he can't be scared into caring about our standards, but either way it avoids six months of disruption. Bgwhite's conditions for CA's editing mean that Bgwhite wouldn't block if CA avoided certain things; conditions don't mean that an admin is unable to block based on a community discussion. Nyttend (talk) 12:20, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but I fail to see where an extreme six month ban is warranted when a shorter ban accomplishes the same thing. I also fail to see where anything near consensus was found for such a long ban. I'm not arguing against a ban, as I've mentioned above. But, this seems retributive. Bgwhite (talk) 20:19, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

"Indefinite" does not mean "infinite". A short term block (not "ban") is wholly appropriate - when there is reason to believe that the situation that led to the block can be resolved by the time the ban expires. If there is no indication of a time period within which improvement can be done, then a long block, or even an indef, is wholly appropriate - it could be lifted tomorrow if the situation is resolved. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:23, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

One of problems is that when anything happens CA says "I'll stop... See I've stopped", but then the disruption switches to something else, so it's hard to take his current pleas seriously - they may be heartfelt, but CA doesn't seem to be able to follow through on them. Perhaps the solution might be a conditional unblock on a short leash, with mandatory mentoring? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:38, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Having read this discussion and CA's talk page discussions, it is very apparent to me (and I speak with some expertise) that English mastery is very much a factor in this issue. I can see any number of small indicators that his English vocabulary, grammar and comprehension are limited beyond the obvious errors anyone can pick up. This editor neither reads nor understands English at a level necessary to comprehend the how's and why's of the situation in which he finds himself. Moreover, he lacks sufficient written English to be editing in en-wiki. Thus his apologies and explanations are simplistic and repetitive; he's trying to say what he thinks he should, but I doubt he really understands how to do the complex editing he wants to do, much less what he's doing wrong, or why. Case in point: his fixation on credit, something not part of wikipedia beyond edit count. I have no view on what action should be taken, but thought I'd offer a little perspective on his English for whatever it may be worth. --Drmargi (talk) 06:34, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

It's a very strange case. He'll insist he is sorry, yet immediately start again. Nyttend blocked him for six months, and it seems as if he's refusing it. He's made numerous requests to be unblocked, even though he was informed to step away for a few months. It's hard to believe whether or not he's changed his habits so soon. And I didn't want to weigh in on the whole competency issue, but it does seem he's unaware of a majority of the guidelines here. Rusted AutoParts 02:47, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Premature RFC

WP:FOUR has been contentious of late with people proposing new criteria for the award. Recently, Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Four Award was opened. Now, what I believe to be a premature RFC was opened. There is talk of having new criteria at WP:FOUR. I have been attempting to identify all the articles that would have to be rereviewed before hosting an RFC on the issue. I have been drafting the RFC since August 1. Now User:Khazar2 who does not seem to know the issues is jumping in with a premature RFC. Because he does has not been involved and does not know the issues, he views my attempt to determine which articles are at issue as spurious "data collection" and he does not understand some of the other issues. I am not even sure if he understands all the articles will have to be rereviewed if he changes the criteria (to something like anyone involved in the first 24 hours). Is it possible to shut that RFC down until the MFD is complete and we have an understanding of what articles are at issue.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 17:59, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

With respect, this complaint just screams of the same WP:OWN issues that you already face in this area. Someone beat you to the punch, and did so without requiring a massive proposal for an RFC that is framed as much in your favour as you think you can get away with. Resolute 18:34, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Do you see no possibility that you two can work together on this? It seems unwise to close one RfC down only to immediately open a new RfC. NewJerseyLiz 21:26, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

In direct response to your question, I am willing to respond to feedback about the RFC, but don't think a new RFC will be opening up immediately. I doubt we will know the articles at issue before September unless a kind bot operator steps in. The MFD will certainly last a few more days and probably another week.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 21:49, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

In all honesty, it seems that there is a faction that is very intent on new set of criteria which would necessitate that all articles be rereviewed. No articles have been reviewed for the criteria that they propose. I would like to encourage them to create their own award and let this one police itself. Then my RFC could get feedback on the award related to the 800 or so articles that have been reviewed for the long-established criteria. Is there a way to encourage the people who want to create a new award just to go off and do it rather than try and impose it on this one. I doubt people involved in the current award are going to review the articles for the new criteria. I certainly am not and I have done 90% of the reviews for the current award. The people who have been awarded the award may not be awarded it for the new criteria. Can't we just ask them to create their own award.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 21:46, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunatly, Tony, I have to agree with Resolute here: this arises from your acting as if you own WP:FOUR. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:30, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

The RfC which has been launched is a massive improvement over what Tony was developing. Nick-D (talk) 01:21, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

• Clear WP:OWN violation from Tony, again. Should he be topic-banned from WP:FOUR, or is that premature? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

• TTT launched his RFC and canvassed massively in favour of it. After a thread at ANI started about this (Misplaced Pages:ANI#Continuing WP:OWN issues from User:TonyTheTiger) I have closed TTT's RFC (and the MFD of TTT's RFC) etc. Bencherlite 11:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry I didn't respond here sooner; I didn't receive the ping from the link above, and Tony elected not to notify my talk page. I'm frustrated to discover yet another thread Tony's making accusations against me in this week: the total now includes WT:DYK, WT:FAC, WT:GAN, two threads on this page, and more than 150 user pages. (Admittedly, this one is better than his usual accusations that I'm making bad-faith efforts to stifle discussion, such as here and here).

Tony, I've voluntarily withdrawn from the conversation at FOUR to try to get back to content work; I'd appreciate it if you'd stop your harassment and leave me out of this from here on. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:47, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Need an admin to close an RfC

Talk:The Dakota#Request for Comment has scared away a couple of admins already, due to its length, and has been open well over 30 days with the last comment timestamped July 27. Despite the length, it comes down to whether to add five words: "also known as Dakota Apartments." If we could ask for an intrepid admin to give it a look and finally close this RfC, I know all the participants would be grateful. With thanks, Tenebrae (talk) 13:50, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done Huon (talk) 06:26, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Homewrecker edits

Could an uninvolved admin step in and take a look at Homewrecker. I am brushing up against the WP:3RR (my reverts ) and my attempts at discussing this at the talk page have not resulted in a consensus solution. The final edits by User:Dovid involve the cut/paste of Homewrecker to Homewrecker (disambiguation). I have notified the user with {{AN-notice}}. Thanks. Tassedethe (talk) 20:26, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I'm uninvolved. I've taken my shot at rolling back this manifestation of edit-warring. I've explained myself on the talk page and in my edit summaries. David in DC (talk) 20:50, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Per the article talk page, User:David in DC has elected to stop working on resolution at this time, and to wait for others to weigh in here. Dovid (talk) 22:09, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Discussion seems to have started. If they revert again report them to WP:ANEW. (I am not an admin) PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 22:01, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

The initial request was for an uninvolved admin to take a look at this. I'm not an admin, but I think my actions yesterday have created a ceasefire in the edit war. An administratative action, even if it's just a closure, per PantherLeopard above, would now seem in order.

In my view, a simple closure, without at least some comment on the editorial behavior, would be less helpful than getting a bit of administrative guidance. David in DC (talk) 12:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, given the metaphorical sound of metaphorical crickets, would anyone care to opine on this proposal. If so, would you please join the talk page conversation and, if it's agreed to, the proposed collaboration? David in DC (talk) 12:45, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

harrassment by NarSakSasLee

]

I consider this a form of harassment, not only is NarSakSasLee asking an administrator to take action against me not through proper channels (like the administraor message board) he is speculating on my religion ( I am not even a sikh, which is irrelevant anyway) Coasttrip (talk) 23:07, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I consider this a bigger form of harassment; You opened up a disingenious sock puppet investigation on me without informing me. Further you're repeatedly removing of scholarly academic sources (see sockpuppet investigation for proof) has been problematic for the Misplaced Pages project overall. After the admin warned you not to place in rumour based articles in the "Forced Conversion" article you did it anyway and in many others. This is just an emotional response from you as you clearly want to violate policy by any means necessary and place in incredibly biased statements whilst removing academic sources. NarSakSasLee (talk) 23:16, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

my apologies for not notifying you however according to Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations it implies it is optional to notify the accused, that hardly qualifies as harrasment. you are incorrect in your claim about 'rumors' the word rumor was not used in that news story by the way, and dougweller did not issue a 'warning' it is a conflict of interest for an administrator who is editing an article to use his administrative powers to enforce his personal views in an edit dispute, and I did not even revert dougwellers edit, I considered his comments when i edited the other articles

this does not excuse your harassment and attempt at religious bigotry Coasttrip (talk) 23:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

You're being manipulative again. You've done so on the sock puppet investigation page and you're doing it now. You've been on Misplaced Pages for several years now and you were uncivil enough to prevent me from defending myself at the sockpuppet investigation by not informing me. You're incorrect in regards to civility and etiquette. Further, you know full well that the edit analysing tool shows no pattern between my edits and the IPs. One or two edits does not equate to sock puppetry. Yet you've tried deliberately to make the connection. I have no history editing the articles those IPs have. I've only ever rollbacked or reverted removal of sourced content. Further there has been no religious bigotry. It's quite obvious why you've been trying so hard to remove scholarly sources. And all the evidence points towards the fact that you may be Sikh. I apologise if this is not true but that's what I'm getting from your recent edit spree. NarSakSasLee (talk) 23:47, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

This doesn't belong here but at ANI. I was indeed approached by NarSakSasLee who said " My guess is that he's a Sikh given his edit history, and understandably it seems quite an emotive issue for the him/her" which doesn't look like bigotry to me. I have clearly not used my Admin powers but I am disturbed by the fact that Coasttrip has ignored my comments at Talk:Love Jihad#Sikh claims - UK about the use of a Birmingham Mail short piece in various articles there is no evidence in the article of any court case, conviction, etc. I also see Coasttrip making editus such as in several articles, with a rationale " regardless (a journal by a single author from a single study) that selective quote itself is unencyclopedic and not neutral see talk page" (see also the discussion at Talk:Forced conversion. Coasttrip's edits seem to remove a useful explanation of what the author was trying to say. Dougweller (talk) 12:06, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Concur with where it belongs - if it must be somewhere, it should be WP:ANI, which is for incidents. I'm involved in the discussion on the content (somewhere between the two primary participants here), and I think that this escalation is premature. We should still be in the cordial stage of attempting to resolve the issue and not yet jumping to revert wars and accusations of wrongdoing. In fact, I'd be really interested in seeing if we could skip that later stage altogether and just settle things in stage one. :) --Moonriddengirl 12:33, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

"Coasttrip has ignored my comments at Talk:Love Jihad#Sikh claims - UK about the use of a Birmingham Mail short piece in various articles there is no evidence in the article of any court case, conviction, etc" a single person does not make a consensus and you did not seek consensus on any the talk pages, before rolling back my edits, , of course you may think your opinion is more important than others and you don't need to gather a consensus before rolling back. Note that much of the love jihad article is based on 'allegations' (how many criminal convictions are related to the 'love jihad' phenomenon and therefore why would a rebuttal be needed in the first place?) the article love jihad and most of forced conversion should be deleted if weere to accept dougwellers new threshold of inclusion

while I may have incorrectly inferred some facts from the article, I disagree any of my edits were in bad faith; they meet the threshold of verifiability for inclusion in the article in question and add context by highlighting a specific incident that claims to be debunked by Katy Sian, by selectively reverting my edits you have helped turn each of those articles les neutral and complete

since dougweller reverted some my edits the exact same paragraph he approves of is duplicated in Islam in the United Kingdom. Sikhism in England, Forced conversion and Sikhism in the United Kingdom - no less than four articles, I did not object to the inclusion of those sources but I felt the paragraph itself was not worded neutrally. I ask you neutral editors if that information really 'belongs' to an article why should it be included in no less than four articles as if it were some overarching all important issue, it seems like the IP editor is promoting a specific author and issue to the detriment of the quality of wikipedia. also speculating about someones personal life is a form of harassment whether you agree with it or not, in fact the fact you approve of NarSakSasLee comments is disturbing, you wouldn't approve of if it were done to you, it wasn't relevant to editing on wikipedia and must be condemned Coasttrip (talk) 13:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

This is not the place for content disputes. If you want to ask neutral editors to weigh in, please review Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution for appropriate avenues. (The IP editor does seem very interested in promoting this perspective, but that's still a content issue at this point.)

I agree that speculation about your religion is inappropriate. That said, the thing to do is ask the other editor not to do that. If they continue, then you seek intervention and do so in the proper forum. :) (If it's a slur or a religious epithet, obviously, that's different. It's not bigotry however to speculate that an editor has a conflict of interest.) NarSakSasLee, please keep in mind that such speculation may have the inadvertent effect of causing others to discount Coasttrip's participation in this area (because they may dismiss anything he says as biased). It's appropriate to ask Coasttrip on his talk page if he has a conflict because of a religious affiliation, if you do so politely, but there can be many reasons for somebody to be interested in a topic without it being personal to them. For instance, I've been working on that article for some time, but I am not from Pakistan, India or the UK, and I am not Muslim, Hindi or Sikh. I just recognize that it's a controversial area, and I'm really interested in helping to keep it neutral.

Really, let's get back to the business of working out the content and save the drama, if we can. It doesn't do any good for anybody. It just makes everybody more unhappy and generates ill-will all around. --Moonriddengirl 13:37, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Like I said before, sourced content should not be removed; and the fact that he did it multiple times and instead inserted speculative news articles in place of it (which suggests that he's indeed being biased), suggests to me that he is a Sikh who is being emotive because it's his culture that's being looked at closely by scholars such as Sian. It's not my problem if he's offended - I just have reason to believe that he is a an emotive Sikh (otherwise why would he specifically insert news articles about alleged forced conversions, making it look like it's a real phenomena and then obliterating neutrality by removing scholarly views on the subject?). I am not going to assume good faith here given how blatant his actions are (such as by ignoring the admin multiple times), using disingenuous editing summaries and being manipulative all round. I however apologise if he's not a Sikh. But his recent actions have been ringing alarm bells on his neutrality stance, particularly when he removes scholarly sourced material. Also the fact that he opened an SPI sock case on me without informing me over a simple reversion of what I would call vandalism and disingenuous editing on his part screams emotional involvement that he can't handle Sian's inclusion; it all points towards his emotional involvement in the subject. I really do apologise if he chooses to be offended, but actions speak louder than words. However this being said I will not mention this again unless I have to. I will also add that if I do indeed see sourced content being removed and edit warring involving these two (said user and IP) I will interfere to re-introduce neutrality. I've left comments on the Love Jihad page too in an attempt to resolve the issue. NarSakSasLee (talk) 16:36, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure it's not your intention to come across that way, but you do run the risk of biasing others in presuming that he is not working in good faith to improve the articles, even if his stance on how that's done is very different. That why WP:NPA says "Note that it is not a personal attack to question an editor at their talk page about their possible conflict of interest on a specific article or topic." I'm not suggesting that what you said was a personal attack; I don't think it was. It's just not best practice. :) It's not really fair to people to suggest to others that they may be too close to deal rationally with an issue without discussing it with them first. I would agree, though, that the SPI was leaping to conclusions, and he should have addressed his concerns about your note to Doug directly before escalating to an administrator's noticeboard. --Moonriddengirl 17:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

it is incorrect of you to accept NarSakSasLee's claim that the sockpuppet investigation is related to my concern raised here, I would never use a sockpuppet investigation as a form of revenge, and it is inappropriate to claim otherwise unless you have some pretty compelling proof, I also do not think that sockpuppet investigation should not be discussed here while the case is still open. I did not even mention the sockpuppet case outside of the investigation page, it was NarSakSasLee and others, and It is NarSakSasLee who responded with personal attacks on the SPI page and did not follow clear guidelines on the SPI main page to discuss only the evidence regarding the sockpuppet claim, and yet ironically he claims I am somehow emotionally linked to my edits.

NarSakSasLee claims I removed references, he may need help with the English language if he believes that, as can be seen here for example I added the very inline reference he claims I removed, NarSakSasLee claimed replacing 'academic paper' with 'essay' is biased but an essay is in fact defined as an academic paper, again NarSakSasLee may have problems if English is not his first language

as moonriddengirl points out"speculation may have the inadvertent effect of causing others to discount Coasttrip's participation in this area (because they may dismiss anything he says as biased)" that no doubt was NarSakSasLee's intention, note that NarSakSasLee and dougweller did not gain a consensus before rolling back edits and therefore to accuse me of being biased is to accept the consensus of two editors (who apparently may have a close relationship). NarSakSasLee post on dougwellers page looks more like an invitation to a witchhunt based on speculation, one could claim based on the evidence that NarSakSasLee has a dislike of Sikhs since he jumped to that conclusion (and steadfastly defends his position) based on a few edits, that obviously is extremely ignorant (and also irrelevant) of NarSakSasLee, any editor can see that I have been a user since 2009 and any issues related to Sikhs or India make a tiny percentage of my edits (and that only recently because I saw some spamming of what I thought was undue weight and lack of neutrality)

rather than trying to discuss the issues on the article talk pages or my talk page, NarSakSasLee created a toxic environment with his call for a religiously inspired witchhunt (based on speculation), the evidence is clear about NarSakSasLee's lack of assuming good faith, lack of civility and lack of tolerance, based on these issues I do not believe NarSakSasLee has edited neutrally therefore his repeated claims of biased editing on my part should be dismissed Coasttrip (talk) 02:08, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

You will have to look very hard to find anything I said above to suggest that you have used the SPI as revenge, since I implied no such thing. :/ Premature, certainly, just like this section was. It's never for the best of the project to leap to conclusions and ramp up the drama. Beyond that, statements like "that no doubt was NarSakSasLee's intention" and " that obviously is extremely ignorant ... of NarSakSasLee" seem more problematic under our policies (such as WP:AGF and WP:NPA) then what NarSakSasLee originally said. In any event, my efforts to focus people on the content dispute without the unpleasantness are obviously not likely to succeed here, so I'll simply focus on the content issues in the appropriate forum. --Moonriddengirl 02:14, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

moonriddengirl, I wasn't actually accusing you of saying that that the SPI was revenge, but you did mention it here, it is NarSakSasLee who believes it is revenge, I am sorry if you interpreted it that way since thats not how I meant it. Coasttrip (talk) 04:05, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

You're diatribe, ranting and Freudian slips aside, Coasttrip you are not allowed to remove reliably sourced content and then go drama hunting to back up your obviously biased agenda. Do not remove reliably sourced content or manipulate edits to make sources, especially scholarly ones, seem less reliable than they actually are, especially if there's no problem with them. You're sly attempts to classify a scholarly work as an "essay" is one of these examples. It was an academic paper. You tried multiple times (see my SPI own case for evidence) to get it removed because you had a problem with it's content based on WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. Quit the semantics. You're fooling no one. This project's aims are to promote and bring the facts, not hide them. You're obviously hindering this goal. I'm not going to say anything more (you're Freudian slip says enough) as you're clearly wasting everyone's time. NarSakSasLee (talk) 02:41, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

NarSakSasLee, sadly your ignorance of the English language is on display again, a research paper is an essay and here is one reliable source "the research paper is a long documented essay" At a Glance: Essays by Brandon Lee chapter 13 (page 216)

Now that your silly argument about the definition of 'essay' has been completely and utterly debunked, perhaps you would care to explain your reasoning behind why you believe 'essay' is more biased than 'research paper'?

For someone that highlights the projects aims to promote and bring the facts, you couldn't even be bothered to do any research (or lacking the ability to do so) before you ranted about the 'biased' definition of essay, that is shocking Coasttrip (talk) 04:08, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

1. Brandon, Lee (January 1, 2011). At a Glance: Essays. Cengage Learning. p. 216. ISBN 0495906301.

Just one question Coasttrip, have you even read the source you've been so zealously trying to remove? You're basic argument all this time has consisted of "it does not belong in X it belongs in Y" and then "it does not belong in Y it belongs in Z". This is what I mean about your disingenuous edits. You're trying very hard to remove any reference to it. Further it was Moonriddengirl that wrote the entire Sian section and it was based on consensus that it was developed into it's neutral form from what the IP had contributed. That's why it's not an NPOV issue. NarSakSasLee (talk) 03:05, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Coasttrip's contributions at Talk:Forced conversion are getting close to tendentious if they aren't already there. Dougweller (talk) 16:19, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe my contributions on that talk page are 'tendentious' or violate any wikipedia policies, because I had some genuine concerns about a particular section, you now claim I am 'promoting a particular cause or point of view' (tendentious), the word tendentious usually has negative connotation, in a way implying that I am a biased person. I think you should let others weigh in the discussion (on any talk page) before jumping to sweeping judgements after only a few hours since that is not assuming good faith. Coasttrip (talk) 17:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Several editors have now noticed that you're trying to promote a particular opinion. That is called bias. You deserve the trout. NarSakSasLee (talk) 22:52, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposed siteban of Strangesad

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

Following an ugly dispute that has taken place at ANI and various other locations, Strangesad (talk · contribs) has finally earned a block for her disruptive editing. However, this block is only for 48 hours. Seeing as Strangesad wants an indefinite block, and seeing as she has made suggested that she will resort to sockpuppeting (see also this and this), I hereby propose that she be banned indefinitely. Such a ban would not only demonstrate that the user's actions are not acceptable, but it would allow us to immediately revert any edits made in defiance of the ban. Ideally, this could prevent further unnecessary discussions as sockpuppets can simply be blocked, reverted and then ignored. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 02:53, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 02:53, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support - I supported the topic ban in the thread above, but my inclination about this was to say "let's not pile on right away" -- until I read Strangesad's talk page. Certainly, being blocked can lead to an emotional reaction, and we should allow editors some leeway to blow off steam when that happens, but I'm concerned that Strangesad's reaction indicates that she was never here to contribute productively, that she has intentionally been trolling all this time. Certainly her editing history doesn't indicate any desire to neutrally improve the encyclopedia. A site ban will most probably lead to sockpuppetry, as threatened, but if I'm correct about her original intentions, socking was in her future in any event. Certainly, given the tight focus of her edits, and her combative and aggressive attitude, any sock she creates will surely be recognized fairly quickly, so I think the project is in little danger of harm from her. Reluctantly, because of the short period since the topic ban was applied, I have to support this proposal for a site ban. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:06, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support, mainly per WP:ROPE. I would very rarely support an indefinite ban on someone with such a short block log, but their repeated threats to sock make me believe they actually mean it in earnest. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:09, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support per my position at ANI. My experience with the editor suggests, at the very least, that she is NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, but rather to rag on topics of interest to her and just cause a ruckus. These new edits are certainly proving my position. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
• Is it snowing in here? Support - Per above. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 03:23, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support, regrettably. GregJackP Boomer! 03:25, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
• Sigh. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
• oppose I am one of the people Stragesad was disruptive with, and while I think their actions certainly deserve a block (perhaps a longer one than they got) I'm not a big fan of preemptive action. Give them the WP:ROPE. If they follow through on their threats, the ban easy easy to implement then. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - Strangesad has announced her intention to sockpuppet and has expressed frustration at not being able to get to work doing so right away I'm bummed I can't create a new account until the block expires. You guys are good! That's oaky, it gives me time to think of a new name. Site banned or not, she will try to evade her topic ban so she can continue on her mission to battle, as she imagines, against religiously prejudiced bigots. Yes, it should be easy to recognise her as BMK says, but I hope admins and others will help those of us who are active at the pages she is likely to target (Jesus, Resurrection of Jesus), etc., to watch out for her.Smeat75 (talk) 04:15, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I support extension of the block to indef, until and iff the user can convince the community that they will edit collaboratively, according to our norms and policies. If talkpage usage continues to be disruptive I support withdrawing that access too. At the point where further disruption or socking is shown to have occured, I would then support increasing this to a siteban. Sorry if that seems overly bureaucratic, but I'm keen that we don't take the last step of saying "you are never welcome here" until absolutely no other options are left, and I guess that there is still the remote possibility that the reality of an indef block may force a rethink, although I confess it does seem unlikely at this point. As BMK points out, socking is likely to be trivial to spot, so we may as well reel out the last vestige of rope and stretch our AGF till the end. If nothing else we can be confident we have then given every chance possible. Begoon  05:34, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• I think we've all seen site bans lifted, so it's not really "You are never welcome here." The real difference between an indef block and a community site ban is that the former can be lifted by any admin, while the latter requires community discussion. Considering the disruption she has caused, I don't think it's unreasonable to require Strangesad to convince the community, and not simply a single admin, that she has changed her ways. (Also, in terms of practicality, a socking site-banned editor's contributions can be deleted on sight, while those from a block-evader cannot be, at least technically.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:42, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• That's not what WP:CSD#G5 says; I've just applied to a couple of pages, so my memory on that is fresh. Someone not using his real name (talk) 10:43, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• support indef-block, oppose ban for now. The difference is that if Strangesad should decide to accept the rules of this place and request a good-faith return, the door should be open for an admin to unblock him/her, as soon as s/he gives a credible promise to respect the topic ban and not to resort to socking. I see no benefit in cementing the situation in such a way that we'd first need a big drawn-out "unban" discussion here in that situation. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support per Crisco. —Cliftonian (talk) 06:51, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

It's incredibly disappointing to see people wasting MORE time over this. The whole reason I shut down the prior discussion was to prevent exactly this sort of thing. Leave her alone to sit out the block, if she misbehaves following that then it will be easy enough to spot - we have ample experience dealing with socks. At that point we can look at more serious measures. However, piling on the topic ban - block - ban train is not pleasant and you'd be better finding other things to do IMO. And bottom line; whether we ban her or not right now, she could still sock, so it makes zero difference. If she socks disruptively she will be spotted and blocked, if she doesn't then we all look a bit silly. --Errant 07:48, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• Strong support. Strangesad (talk) 06:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC) copied from her talk page Cheers, Lindsay 07:53, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
• Despite the immediate above, support/oppose per Future Perfect Cheers, Lindsay 07:53, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support despite the site ban feeding a troll. Clearly NOTHERE, has clearly stated their intention to violate every policy on Misplaced Pages. Get ready for the army of socks, which the site ban will help slow down. Maybe we should semi-protect and/or pending changes protect the areas where Strangesad was disruptive as well? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:20, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
• Neutral but preferring longer timed block to indef or ban. This would obviate the apparently sought 'martyrdom' that "Strong support. Strangesad (talk) 06:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)" in response to the ANI notice suggests. Something is amiss. It may be that an enforced wikibreak will help things to settle down. If not, then go for the ban. Peridon (talk) 10:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support ban. This user has already been given an incredible amount of leeway and has used an awful lot of the community's energy. She is not here to build an encyclopedia, and should be shown the door. --Laser brain (talk) 10:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
• WP:DIVA seldom had a better cast. The promise to sock reminds me of how ScienceApologist dug himself into a hole. Someone not using his real name (talk) 10:39, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose site ban; support extended (preferably timed) block, possibly without talk page access Strangesad is an intelligent editor who could contribute well in any other area if she chose to; a site ban would deny her that option, and the topic ban is all that is needed to curb her current forms of disruption. At present, merely a day after the topic ban was imposed, she is raging. The storm doesn't look like blowing over within the 48-hour block, but might do in a fortnight or a month. I suggest revoking talk page access, as her activities there are helping her to stay worked up, as well as tempting people to further discussions like this. Let's see what a decent holiday can do before getting even more draconian. --Stfg (talk) 10:47, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
• Indefblock this account for now, with a note making clear the possibility of unblocking if they commit to changing their behavior; siteban them if the promised sockpuppeting starts. -- The Anome (talk) 10:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I won't comment on a site ban, having had too many brushes with Strangesad. The latest days of disruptions, and the threats of much more disruption to come, is unfortunately only what could be expected of a user who never was able to accept any opinion that didn't agree 100% with their own views, and who always responded poorly and with heaps of abuse when things did not go their way. Looking at some articles with lots of disputes, such Muhammad and Macedonia, I see that the community has decided to deal with this by establishing policies and WP:MOSMAC which put an end to years of pointless edit warring and disputes. I would propose something similar for Jesus. Given that there is complete academic consensus that the person existed, perhaps we could do a FAQ similar to that of Muhammad and explain this. As Bart Ehrman has pointed out, the little group on conspiracy theorists who argue that Jesus never existed is small and lacks any academic support, but they are highly vocal and active on the Internet. As can be seen from both the puppetmaster Minorview and now Strangesad, they don't care about silly details such as Misplaced Pages policies in their pursuit of the higher truth. We're sure to see more, not least in the form of new puppets of these two. An easy way to deal with this, and avoid future discussions, is to do as with Muhammad. By this I do not mean we should set in stone that the article can never ever put Jesus's existence in question. Quite the opposite, the article should do that if there are in the future proper academic sources making that case, rather that non-academic WP:FRINGE ideas. As for now, there are no such sources, only a complete academic consensus. It would be easier to adhere to that consensus than to deal with the constant disruptions that have taken so much of the community's time.Jeppiz (talk) 10:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Let's see how she edits after her current block expires. If she violates her Topic Ban repeatedly, I'd support an indefinite block. Liz 11:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. If an editor dares me to block them, damn straight I'm gonna block'em. But this isn't Strangesad asking to be indeffed, this is Strangesad trolling the community - and this thread is proof that they succeeded. If they break the rules, indef away - and I, for one, will be watching closely to see what happens. But we don't preemptively indef block editors for douchebaggery. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 12:23, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose What the hell? When did indef blocks start to become one of the first things we do rather than a last resort? There wasn't enough disruption for any type of ban, let alone a complete site ban. What the hell is becoming of Misplaced Pages? No wonder editing is down. This is getting way out of hand. No wonder that off wiki web sites are starting to pick up. It all starts here.--JOJ 12:33, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• I would argue that editing is down more because we tolerate far too much disruption and let it drag out for far too long. I also strongly disagree with your assertion about the level of disruption going on here. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 13:50, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• You can argue for that all you want, but the evidence shows that one of the biggest complaints by people who leave Misplaced Pages is that more established editors tend to Bite far too often. Its not the disruption that people hate, its all the damn dram brought on by other editors who should know better. Thats what the real problem is.--JOJ 15:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not sure how much you've seen, JOJ, but from my observations, Strangesad has been incredibly disruptive, and is also not a new user either. The ANI thread where they were topic-banned is one example; their response to being topic banned was a blatant "throwing the toys out of the pram" and that has only worsened since their block. Strangesad has brought all of the drama upon themselves, and has created a good deal of it themselves directly - look at their talk page. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:54, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
• Suggesting that other editors are the ones causing drama here indicates you haven't actually looked through what's been going on in this particular long strange trip. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:34, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• I never suggested that anyone here is causing drama, you inferred that yourself. I only said that Drama is part of the reason why editorship is down. I have looked at the edits. An account that has only made 500 edits in 10 months is hardly a major disruption. Only about 100 or so on Jesus/Christ related talk pages. Another 50 or so on actual main pages. Most of the edits from that account are dealing with all the ANI/User page discussions. All this looks like to me is someone who supports a conflicting opinion from the majority, and the majority is trying to get rid of the opposing opinion. The opinions themselves and the related edits are not disruptive enough for an all out site ban. It goes against everything Misplaced Pages is "Suppose" to stand for, such as "everyone can edit". I guess not, unless they have the same opinions as everyone else. Its a poor, but unfortunately a popular tactic.--JOJ 17:48, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• Just to be clear here, Jojhutton's claim is that everybody involved in the ANI discussion held a common content opinion and wanted to get rid of anyone opposed to it? And every previously uninvolved admin here at AN who upheld the topic ban had the same agenda and the same sinister motives? And the only innocent one is the topic banned user who immediately and repeatedly violated the topic banned, repeatedly encouraged sock-puppeting, and call others "fucking pussies"? Ok, everybody is entitled to their opinion but it sure is a good thing Jojhutton isn't an admin. I don't think I've ever seen anyone less suited.Jeppiz (talk) 20:39, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• Not going to feel sorry for having restraint and looking at the whole picture rather than individual screenshots. Thats the type of admin that Misplaced Pages needs, someone who can be truly unbiased. Perhaps if you looked at the entire scenario and take and look at the situation from someone else's point of view, you may see that Strangebad is continually provoked. Its easy to gang up on inexperienced editors to the point that all the frustrations come out all at once. Its very frustrating when you feel that not only are people not listening, but they actually want to shut you up entirely by banning you. So when the inexperienced and obviously frustrated editor lashes out because they were constantly provoked, they get banned. That doesn't seem right.--JOJ 20:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• Well, you're entirely entitled to your opinion. And if that opinion is to indirectly state that all of us who insist of WP:RS are "provoking", and blaming all the admins who unanimously upheld the topic ban for being biased, and defending sockpuppeting and calling the admins "fucking pussies", then you're still perfectly entitled to that opinion. If you then also hold the opinion that you would be the "admin that Misplaced Pages needs", then my already stated opinion is the opposite. Contrary to what you seem to believe, different opinions are actually welcome.Jeppiz (talk) 21:18, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• Well you are inferring more from my comment than I said. And we all know that inferring something that wasn't implied led to about 90% of all the plots on Three's Company. I never said that any admin here was biased in this case. I only said that unbiased admins are what Misplaced Pages needs. I hope you don't disagree with that. I also do not support sock puppetry or uncivil behavior, just as I do not support provoking people into that type of behavior. And as far as saying that I would be a bad admin, I am sorry that you feel that way. I'm not sure where that attack came from, but I will tell you that I do take it as a personal and unprovoked attack. I did nothing to you, but you commented on me person;;y and I was very offended by your comment.--JOJ 22:18, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• I certainly did not intend to offend you. For what it's worth, I don't think I would be a good admin either and I did not intend that as a comment on your person. I do believe that your reading of this particular situation is way off, but that does not lead me to make any judgement on you as a person. Certainly you can understand that you saying that Strangesad was "provoked" can be seen as an attack as well, as it means by definition that you have people in mind who "provoked" her.Jeppiz (talk) 22:25, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support I'm sorry, but using such language combined with the sheer and blatant disrespect, hatred, and disgusting attitude leaves us no choice but to impose a CBAN. Good riddance. Dusti 15:21, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
• Note:

  Strong support. Strangesad (talk) 06:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Just thought I'd include this from her talk page Dusti 15:25, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

FYI, that has already been copied over -- see about a dozen comments above this. Interesting that someone with such a strong anti-religious POV should show such signs of having something of a martyr complex - but I suppose ideologues of all types share that. Or, of course, she could just be anxious to begin socking, as threatened. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:52, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support. This is a classic case of WP:NOTHERE, WP:DIVA, and m:TROLL. A siteban is very much the subject of last resort, and normally would never be considered this quickly - but this editor has left us with no other choice from their own actions, and no-one else's. It's time for them to be shown the door, and nothing of value was lost. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:34, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Strangesad has definitely been upset by the topic ban. I think such a reaction can be understandable, though not defended, and I do not think we should judge the user only based on that. The block will expire tomorrow and I suggest no decision is taken before. If Strangesad has calmed down and goes back to editing responsibly, then no site ban should be imposed. Site banning right now would seem premature.Jeppiz (talk) 20:46, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't think an editor should have a 48 block extended to indefinitely during the 48 hours when no additional disruption has been caused. I feel like Strangesad is being deliberately provocative on her Talk Page, issuing a dare of sorts but that doesn't mean we need to take the bait. She should be treated as any other editor who has been given a limited time duration ban. Unblock her and see what happens. If she continues to be disruptive, block a week, again, then a month, then 3 months. Or it might not happen at all. Liz 00:19, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

  There is no requirement that there be a standard escalation of blocks - that regime is designed for editors who are, for the most part, productive and helpful to the building of an encyclopedia, but run afoul of the rules occasionally. An editor who is so disruptive that they have been topic banned, and has provoked long-term editors, both rank-and-file and admins, into seriously talking about a site ban, shouldn't get that kind of consideration. If this discussion isn't closed with a site ban or an indef block, then Stragesad's leash should be extremely short. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

  Incidentally, I hope whoever closes the discussion won't take the "site ban" !votes and the "indef block" !votes as being unrelated. I think it's obvious that every comment advocating a site ban is a de facto approval of an indef block if a site ban isn't the consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

  It was my understanding that everybody of course can comment as much as we want, but that we only state our oppose or our support once. I don't quite get the meaning of repeating several oppose or support in the same discussion, as Liz is doing here. Doesn't it just make things look messier? Then again, perhaps I've missed something, hence the question.Jeppiz (talk) 07:59, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

  Indeed; I've struck the duplicated bolded vote part of the comment above. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose; based on one criteria—Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Strangesad. If it is prudent enough for Arbcom to prefer an Rfc/u, prerequisite a siteban, it is prudent enough that we ennoble this board, by nullification if necessary. My !vote derives from a belief that nearly all editors deserve such a full consideration; even Strangesad, and me—and you? :) John Cline (talk) 08:54, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - The account has just over 500 edits in less than a year. Is there any evidence that this is already a banned user, or that they have already been socking? Doc talk 09:02, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose This is on admittedly incomplete information, but I started looking at the first edits of SS. I reject the claim above that SS was "never here to contribute productively, that she has intentionally been trolling all this time". The very first edit was to add a site dedicated to the Vancouver Island Marmot to the article Vancouver Island marmot. It was reverted. SS politely asked why and was told "discourages links that are only marginally related to the page content". SS politely explained why a site about the Vancouver Island marmot was related to the article about the Vancouver Island marmot. I recount this to make two points: first it is clear that the editor was engaging in productive edits at one time. Second, our communities reponse to this new editor wasn't ideal as the response by Jprg1966 was "Yes, I did look at the link and I would appreciate a more respectful tone". Seriously? The use of the word "honestly" by a new editor is so egregious it deserves this rebuke? Shortly after, when SS points out that policy forbids those involved from voting on bans, Nil Einne responds "...What they failed to point out is it also forbids those uninvolved from voting. ..." This, understandably, confuses SS. While Nil Einne was technically correct, this is the type of response you give to someone with years of experience, who will get it, not to a new editor. Not a big deal, but, as a community, we do not treat new editors well. Perhaps we shouldn't wonder when it turns out badly.

Please note I am not excusing later behavior, I haven't even read it. I'll accept that a block was warranted. However, this does not appear to be the exceptional case that justifies an indef so quickly.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:36, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

In my reference to me, I take it you are referring to this discussion Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive786#Bizarre actions by Strangesad. I disagree with you that this response was not suitable for Strangesad because they're new, ignoring the fact I think it's unresonable to expect people to automatically know if someone is new or not when responding. While we can sometimes treat new editors poorly, new editors also need to interact with the community in a resonable manner. It's not unresonable to not understand our policies and guidelines and we expect that, but similarly new editors should also expect that they may not understand our policies and guidelines and should be willing to read them when asked to and should be willing to ask for help or explaination when confused rather then just expecting people to know something is confusing them or acting like they know and understand our policies and guidelines. To be clear, I'm not saying Strangesad's behaviour was very bad, simply that if they were confused, they were welcome and should have sought seek clarification of my response, which wasn't even directed at them (and was in small text i.e. was clearly intended as an off the cuff remark). If an editor is unwilling to seek clarification of stuff which confuses them, the problem is with the, not us. This doesn't mean we should be intentionally confusing, but as I've indicated we often do not check an editors history so have little idea of their experience beyond what we may guess from their comments or any discussion surrounding them (but there's generally no requirement or expectation to read the entirety of the discussion before commenting on one specific issue); and in addition in side discussions primarily involving other editors (which this was), it's unresonable and unnecessary to aim for perfect clarity for anyone minorly involved in the discussion. As it was, Strangesad must have read something, otherwise they wouldn't be able to suggest involved editors are forbidden from voting, yet they clearly either didn't read properly or failed to understand what they were reading since they seemed to think involved editors opinions are not able to participate in determing consensus and that we vote rather than reach consensus, both I consider fundamental misunderstandings of policy. For the voting issue, it sounds like it was pointed out to Strangesad before that we do not vote, yet they persisted in this confusion which is unfortunate to say the least. It may be that my comment directed at someone else, finally lead to this existing confusion being cleared up which I consider a good thing whatever the temporary additional confusion. I would note I'm perfectly willing to offer clearer explainations to new editors when they seem to need it and I have the time, the most common complaint I get is of being insufficiently concise not of expecting new editors to understand something only an experienced editor would. Nil Einne (talk) 19:59, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - to steal the words of User:Floquenbeam - somehow it's still possible to push the blocky button without a stupid proposal that is wasting people's times. This bureaucracy is utterly ridiculous. for the record, I support blocking any socks that come up ~Charmlet 14:57, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I hesitate to get involved here, but since I was pinged, I think you've misunderstood my point a little, and I'd like to clarify it. I'm opposed to the numerous stupid "community ban" threads about prolific vandal sockmasters who are already indef blocked, because it achieves no benefit whatsoever from the current condition, and diminishes us in several ways. But I don't have a similar blanket contempt for community ban proposals for someone who is not yet indef blocked, because this discussion could result in a change to the status quo. I'm not going to express an opinion on whether this particular editor should actually be banned or not - haven't looked into it - but for those 2-3 people for whom "per Floq" means something, Charmlet's opinion is not really based on my typical ban discussion comment. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:23, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Seeing as I misinterpreted that, I've stricken your name from my comment. However, as I stated, it was not impossible to push the block button before this was closed. There's no need for a strict exact explicit ban unless anything further happens. ~Charmlet 18:39, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - Strangesad's first activity after the expiration of her block - - restores a long post on the Jesus talk page, repeating a lot of stuff she has said many times ("How many times do I have to say this?"), with an edit summary "this response was begun (but not completed) prior to the topic ban and thus not covered by ban; it is also wrong to characterize these discussions as ban-worthy".Smeat75 (talk) 16:56, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
• FYI blocked indef for intentionally violating the topic ban with their first edit. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:04, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Surprise level: zilch. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:34, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose site ban. Support the existing topic ban. Jesus is hard. The "scholarship" in the field is dominated by people who believe he walked on water and rose from the dead and that they drink his blood and eat his body every Sunday, and very few serious historians can be bothered with a topic dominated by such people. So I have the deepest sympathy with Strangesad's frustration, but also realise they're howling at the moon. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 19:10, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

@Anthonyhcole. You chose to write "The 'scholarship' in the field" as if they are not qualified. With all due respect, you have no idea what you're talking about. Most of the scholarship in the field is made up of academics from leading US universities (Harvard, Princeton, Yale) and very few of them believe Jesus walked on water. The leading source we cite, professor Ehrman, is not even a Christian and has written countless books exposing problems in traditional Christian perceptions about Jesus. This is of course of topic, but the comment above was so ridiculous that I wanted to address it. Not to mention how insulting it was to a large number of scholars.Jeppiz (talk) 19:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Cheers! --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 19:31, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I am trying to understand my recourse.

Benchertite "closed" my RFC. It was undergoing an MFD with a 2:1 keep:delete vote at the time. I don't think that WP:DELREV is appropriate because closing the page is not the same as deleting it. I have never heard of closing a page. For this RFC regarding WP:FOUR I contacted all 167 past FOUR honorees. I informed them that there are two RFCs. I stated that I think the first is unfair and that proponents of the first think mine is unfair. I asked them to participate in my RFC. Do I have any recourse? Does the page have to remain capped?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:28, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Recourse? You drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. This has popped up at AN(/I) like five times now in the past few weeks. If you don't see why contacting 167 people could be seen as canvassing, then you're clearly too close to this to see things objectively, and should give it a rest before the community makes you give it a rest. — PublicAmpers& 20:48, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You violated WP:CANVASS in the most spectacular fashion I've ever seen. Closing the RFC as irreversibly contaminated is the right course of action. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:48, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Even if we ignore the number of people you canvassed that message was in no way neutral. "I stated that I think the first is unfair and that proponents of the first think mine is unfair" was not the language you used in the notification. You claim yours is better and that their stops people expressing an opinion. That shows you're being far from objective about this. Given the terrible canvassing that has occurred closure of the RfC was the only option. I've not read the RfC but even if you had worded that neutrally the RfC has been irreparably damaged by the canvassing. Dpmuk (talk) 21:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• I have just notified Bencherlite, something which was not done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:39, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• The closed RfC was much clearer than the first. I disagree with its closure on that basis, while voicing no opinion on canvasing or contamination. GregJackP Boomer! 23:17, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
  • There was no comment about how clear or unclear that pseudo-RFC was, just that any results would have been irrevocably tainted owing to the number of non-neutral "invitations" sent out. Better to close an RFC that will not be able to reach a consensus then to have more drama pop up. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I disagree that Tony's RfC was "much clearer". To me, the clearer RfC is the one with the briefest question posed. It no longer matters, though, because Tony's canvassing hopelessly poisoned whatever results might have been obtained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Binksternet (talk • contribs) 23:34, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

exempt topic ban/interaction ban request

Fairly recent I know. But I've seen the error in my ways and according to the issues of previous topic ban, I will not bring ANI incidents again unless unavoidable and not be uncivil, even if another editor is. I've had a lot to deal with relating to family member being in the hospital and was able to cool down mostly during the last week.Lucia Black (talk) 03:07, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I would strongly recommend against modifying or removing the You ban (or the interaction ban) which were discussed and decided here. While it's great that you've cooled down ~ if not great the way you've had to ~ three weeks into three month topic and interaction bans is not far. Honestly, another nine weeks or so away from ANI and AN and Anime subjects is not that long. Heck, staying away from the first two ought to be a pleasure for you! I suggest spending two-and-a-bit months having fun in something completely different; learn and write about photography or philosophy or philately or.... Cheers, Lindsay 06:32, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

There was some level of urgency today when a dispute Lucia was a party to and was undergoing mediation suddenly escalated. It would help if she was allowed to contribute her opinions.—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:45, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I think the topic ban should remain in place, as far as ANI and Wikiproject:ANIME are concerned. But - If someone else begins an ANI thread, I would not object to a brief statement from Lucia detailing her position - she is a party to the dispute, after all. Such an exemption should only be for that thread (in which she is named as a party), and only so long as she stays civil and on-point. But I don't know that there will be consensus for that, given her conduct in the thread linked above. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 13:44, 21 Augus (UTC)

Regarding this particular issue, I just find it too ironic. Regardless, I made precautions so that uncivility doesn't start (rather than engaging the editor with uncivility, I'll save the link to my linkbank so that I don't have to bring this to ANI) and I also don't mind the interaction ban itself, but since I am a member of the issue at hand, and rather advantagous of one editor to take oppurtunity.

I'm more worried about the topic ban. Particularly because the issues were mainly on 1 editor (so I can understand the interaction ban) not WP:ANIME itself, which is also a shamme no one specifically from WP:ANIME were able to voice their opinions.Lucia Black (talk) 18:21, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

It's not a decision for one wikiproject, though - if there was disruption that included a project, it's fair to include that project in a topic ban, with or without discussion from the project's membership. The best advice I could offer would be to edit productively and without drama for the three months (two and change, now), and then let the topic ban expire normally. Now, if the current situation (whatever it is) consists of some other editor taking advantage of your inability to bring something to ANI, or to discuss a wikiproject... well, I imagine Ryulong can make that clear in the discussion - gaming the system is frowned upon. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 18:53, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to have to echo Lindsay's sentiments on this one... Sergecross73 mzzsg me 18:34, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• As am I. Three weeks into such a well-supported three month ban isn't yet enougxacts,h. Take the three months off, and come back revitalized. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:29, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Commenting on Ultraexactzz: That's the thing, this issue isn't involving the wikiproject, its just involved with one editor, which is why editors from that wikiproject would've been more relevant. The topic ban simply just doesn't click.Lucia Black (talk) 21:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

The fact that your argument is starting to move more towards "The Topic Ban was unjust." instead of "I've learned my lesson/Things have changed." is all the more reason why it needs to stay in place. Sergecross73 msg me 01:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I already taken the precautions so that incivility won't come from me. I won't bring ANI again, because as editors have stated "waste time". As much as inconclusive the ANI was to specifically why I received action, I gathered the most of it toward uncivility and bringing issues to ANI, and questioning the methods of ANI. I taken account for what I can gather from the ANI. If there's another issue that you see, that I didn't find in ANI, you can state here, and work on it (if not already worked on).Lucia Black (talk) 02:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll be honest with you, I am surprised that you did not question that part of the ban. But it's in place now, and arguing that it's unjust is about the least effective argument you can make while the ban is still in place. If there's a flaw in the ban, you should have questioned it immediately - but even then, that's more of a "The way you worded the ban means that I can't edit these unrelated articles either, can we amend it slightly?" sort of thing, a technical request and not a procedural one on the merits. That's not the argument you're making, though. So, I know it'll be inconvenient, but you really really need to go edit other things for a while. Don't even read the areas under ban (as you clearly have, given comments above). Don't let it stress you out. Go copyedit something, go clear out a maintenance category, go help out with something else. Then come back in a few months ready to not get involved in drama. There is no deadline, and there is no issue so urgent as to require your presence (and no one else's) to solve. It'll be there on your return. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 12:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• Full duration. Lucia unfortunately has a long history of not getting on too well with her fellow editors, not only on the issues mentioned here though not always quite resulting in a ban or a block. The topic ban should run its full duration. As per UltraExactZZ: If someone else begins an ANI thread, I would not object to a brief statement from Lucia detailing her position - she is a party to the dispute, after all. Such an exemption should only be for that thread (in which she is named as a party), and only so long as she stays civil and on-point . (the bolding is mine). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:05, 22 August 2013 (UTC).Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)
• Full duration - Hate to chime in here, but Lucia has come really close to violating her topic ban if not tentatively stepped over the line several times and has been warned for it three times already in this short span. The situations have been reported to Bushranger twice, here and here. The merger was contested and I've repeatedly asked for the status quo for five months. The core problem is application of basic policy for inclusion. The media meets N and GNG, no one questions it, yet it cannot have its own article according to Lucia and Ryulong. Other editors wanted two pages, like Niemti, Dragonzero, Rapunzel-bellflower, etc. Recent commentators like Axem Titanium, opt for separate pages. The A&M Wikiproject has attempted to restrict the creation of pages on notable content. An RFC was clear that A&M's Manual of Style is unable to limit content creation, but Ryulong continues to cite it or use MOS:AM#Page layout as a reason. As it stands, pre-dispute status quo is back. Lucia is upset by that, but policies and a majority of editors support separate pages. Removing the topic ban or the one-way interaction ban is a bad idea because it would result in an immediate continuation of the battleground behavior and more carrying on of how she "hates" me. The content dispute and the behavior are two different things, and policy does not back her argument in the content dispute. Oh, and Lucia is still having issues controlling her posts it seems. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

  Stop making non sequiturs about article content.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• Perhaps we should get this closed? I see zero chance of getting a consenus supporting this at this rate. It's only going to get ugly with the arguing and whatnot. Uninvolved Admin? Sergecross73 msg me 15:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

A null edit and a deletion

Could someone make a null edit to Berliner Mauer and than delete Category:Redirects from German language terms per G6 as "was speedily renamed to Category:Redirects from German-language terms per C2". Regards, Armbrust 12:19, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done -- Agathoclea (talk) 12:42, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Armbrust 12:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Redacted edits should have summaries

Three edits to the article Defense distributed were hidden on May 11, 2013. To be clear, I am not trying to have the edits restored or find out whatever secret information was there. I am simply trying to ensure that transparency is maintained when the two admins involved have been less responsive than I would like.

The problem is that the edit summary was hidden even though WP:CRD states that "It is important that the underlying reason for deletion be made clear in the log summary." My understanding is that User:The Anome redacted the edits and originally gave a reason but the edit summary was hidden by User:Fred Bauder.

User:Fred Bauder replied to a discussion I started but he did not address the question of whether his edit was going against a Misplaced Pages policy. I tried to discuss this with User:The Anome as well but have been unable to get a response out of him. Please make sure that some sort of edit summary finds its way into the logs so that users understand why the redaction was necessary. Connor Behan (talk) 19:50, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

@Connor Behan: I think you were looking at the history - not the deletion log summary. The deletion log is located at Special:Log along with the other logs, and for this page can be accessed here. This shows that User:The Anome Revision Deleted the content (not the user or edit summaries) of three edits in the history, shown by looking like this (Redacted) in the edit history. The Anome apparently also reported this to the Oversight team for Oversight. Before doing the Revision Deletion, The Anome removed the offending text from the page, and left an edit summary to this accord. User:Fred Bauder came along and deleted the edit summary for The Anome's edit because it had the offending text in it. Hope this helps explain the mess. As the edits were at least RevDeled, and at most oversighted, it's unlikely that any more explanation can be offered than they already have. ~Charmlet 19:58, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

So the reason for the revdel only needs to appear in the deletion log and not the history? In either case this has not been done because the log only says that the revision was sent to the Oversight team, not why. I really don't see why a proper explanation cannot be added to the logs or the history. Just write "Removing a link that could put Misplaced Pages in violation of US arms trafficking laws" and everyone will be happy. Connor Behan (talk) 20:26, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Making a questionable legal assertion would be inappropriate. Legal may have been notified, however; I can't remember at this point. Meanwhile, the question of whether there should be links to patterns of plastic weapons, and links to where to get , should be included, and, if removed, not hidden, but discussed in candid detail remains open for policy discussion. User:Fred Bauder Talk 22:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Often admins (and Oversighters, when commenting on OS'd edits) avoid giving overly detailed descriptions, lest they prompt people to try to figure out what the text said (by checking cached copies or mirrors, or even just racking their memories). So I doubt you'd see an admin leaving a summary like that; the summaries are purposefully vague. As to the idea that the revdel should show up in the history, the place to make feature requests is thataway. — PublicAmpers& 21:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

As Pink& says, giving information in the RevDel summary if it will be sent to Oversight could cause a Streisand Effect, or could even accidentally perpetuate the problem, which requires *more* deletions, etc. etc. ~Charmlet 22:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Correct. -- The Anome (talk) 00:03, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad we have gotten to the heart of the problem. Giving a proper edit summary makes it easier for people to figure out what the text said. Why is this a problem? Misplaced Pages is not in the business of making it hard for people to learn things. In fact quite the opposite. Some redactions are necessary to protect Misplaced Pages legally but beyond that, we should not take steps to actively prevent a Streisand Effect. Connor Behan (talk) 01:25, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:REVDEL: "To avoid the Streisand effect, there is no dedicated on-wiki forum for requesting revision deletion.". And it's always been my understanding that a revdel should have as little a summary as possible (basically, unless you're using RD5 when you do have to explain it), lest it attract curiosity and defeat the purpose of the revdel. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:32, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The italicized line calling for a clear reason appears in RD5. However, the green box on top of the seven cases also says to give a clear reason and this would suggest that reasons must be given for all cases except RD4. I didn't really know about Oversight when I tried to challenge the decision made with Defense Distributed. Now that I know oversightable RevDels are covered by a special section, I must concede that the policy was followed well by User:The Anome and User:Fred Bauder. I strongly encourage admins reading this to give clear reasons when using RD1, RD2, RD3, RD5, RD6 or AC. I think this is the only fair thing to do. Connor Behan (talk) 18:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

In case anyone's wondering, in this case a link was inserted to The Pirate Bay. The site hosts lots of links to copyright violations, so it might be a good idea to remove their links even if there are no arms trafficking issues. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:25, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

As a general rule, Misplaced Pages should avoid assuming a role as an accessory of anyone engaging in criminal behavior. We do not hold trials regarding individual links but do need to take reasonable precautions; this may include actions taken without definite determination of the nature of individual links and their full implications. We are not Pirate Bay; we are not in the business they are in; and we have not, and will not, take the measures they seem to have taken to avoid prosecution and loss of our assets. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Sydney ethnic enclaves

as AfD nominator, I seek closure or relisting of this AfD as it has gone past 7 days. thanks. LibStar (talk) 00:10, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Non-notable motorcycle racers.

You feature numerous articles on motorcycle racers from the modern era who are not notable and have no significant achievements to justify their inclusion. If a rider`s MotoGP career indicates, for example, 2 races, 0 wins, 0 podiums and 0 points why would you want to include their biographies? In contrast there are many riders from the past with substantial achievements to their name who do not have Misplaced Pages pages dedicated to them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leprechaun69 (talk • contribs) 09:55, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

This isn't something admins can respond to. If think that the articles clearly don't meet Misplaced Pages's notability criteria please nominate them for deletion through the processes explained at Misplaced Pages:Deletion policy and Misplaced Pages:Deletion process. If you feel that Misplaced Pages is missing articles on notable racers, please create them! You may be interested in the information at Misplaced Pages:New contributors' help page. Nick-D (talk) 12:01, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Backlog of unblock requests

Hi all. There is one backlog that should never happen: CAT:UNBLOCK. Until this is cleared, please take a look at that page whenever you block accounts. If you block an account, go review an unblock request. If we follow that process, the backlog is guaranteed to be eliminated. Jehochman 13:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

No. If we liked those editors, they'd be unblocked already. Screw'em. Thbbt. (Already cleared a few, still 40+ to go.) UltraExactZZ ~ Did 14:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

There are only a small handful of admins who patrol the category on a regular basis so it would certainly be helpful to have fresh eyes there. I do disagree that the backlog should "never happen" as many times an admin is actively discussing the sanctions with the blocked editor, which means they will appear in the category until the discussion reaches its conclusion. This could take several days and certainly inflates the amount of open requests appearing at WP:RFU. It's better to take the time to make sure the blocked editor understands why they were blocked and provide information as to how they can avoid the same mistakes in the future than to have a clean backlog.--Jezebel'sPonyo 16:40, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Active discussion is one thing, but I found unblock requests that were lingering. Jehochman 22:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Advertising on the Main Page

Moved from User talk:Jimbo Wales:

This passed almost without comment, so I thought I'd mention it here. A couple of days ago, DYK included the hook:

... that British manufacturer Karrimor's formidable reputation for ground-breaking outdoor pursuit equipment was a direct result of its location in Lancashire, and a CEO who was an avid climber and trekker?

Should we have stronger guidance against this sort of thing? Or should we maybe go the other way and just issue a rate-card? Formerip (talk) 00:32, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I noticed the above at NPOVN and saw how it looked on the main page. I was dumbfounded that such puffery could be deemed acceptable. The archive showing how it appeared is here (permalink). Johnuniq (talk) 08:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Ugh. I'd love to get more details on this. Do we have any reason to think that this was the result of corruption, or was it just a very poor editorial judgment?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:12, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

* Well, this is interesting. The hook (posted by User:FT2) was originally promoted into the prep queue but then de-peacockised by User:Alex Shih here, who was then scolded for doing it on his talk page by User:FT2 (the discussion is still on Alex and FT2's talk pages here and here). Alex then apologised to FT2 and re-inserted the promotional language here while it was on the main page. Black Kite (talk) 11:29, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

It had also been raised on DYK talk here. I entirely agree the language was inappropriate. Johnbod (talk) 12:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

*Shouldn't this all be moved to WP:AN then given its overtones, so Alex Shih and FT2, who apparently are administrators who did not administer very well, can answer the community and any future remedy can be explored. Rather then spread here and yon? Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

End quoted section moved from User talk:Jimbo Wales.

• Isn't this discussion implying that FT2 expanded Karrimor from a short article tagged as an advert to a much larger, detailed article for promotional reasons? Or at least that they wrote the hook in that way for those reasons? That's a rather heavy implication to throw out against a respected former member of ArbCom. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:22, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think anyone has evidence to suggest that FT2 had some sort of promotional intent with that hook. But, when read cold and without context on the main page, one would expect to see a tag afterword that read "(Promoted Content)", or whatever the trend on the interwebs is at present. There might be very good editorial reasons for including language like that in the article (though I would question the judgment behind those reasons), but that doesn't translate to the Main Page. The bottom line is that this looks awful and someone should know better. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 14:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
• I don't think anyone's accusing anyone of that (looks like FT2 did a good job on the article), more that any language that could be seen as promotional shouldn't have found its way onto the main page in the first place. Black Kite (talk) 14:30, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Drafting a response - give me a few minutes (say 30-40 ish as working). FT2  14:24, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Update - Apologies, took over an hr not 30 mins. Diffs took time to find, I found this got forum shopped (or so it seems, at least 2 places, maybe more) round the wiki first. Checking what I've written, then posting. FT2  15:34, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not normally part of the bash-DYK bandwagon, but using this kind of language in a hook ("formidable reputation for ground-breaking ... equipment) is very troubling to me. That being said, it's premature to be talking about banning people from DYK, since this may be a one-time mistake. Probably best to just warn them against doing this again for now. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Response

This is the first I have heard of the threads about this. A bit of dialog would have cut down unproductive time for all of us. To respond:

General comment on strong tone

In some cases (and I agree it's a very small minority), strong terms seem to be the NPOV characterization of their sources. When that happens, and if it's not editor hyperbole but does appear to be the consistent mainstream/widely/near-universal significant view, and reliable sources do not seem to be excitable fringe publications, strong words may actually be an accurate description of the view of the source, or even the mainstream view. That said, we let facts speak for themselves ("X says Y") and we should be cautious with introducing our own exceptional views and tones. Rarely, facts and sources do universally seem to concur and use such terms. Then not conveying that (ie: watering down because of personal views that we shouldn't represent sources or views as stated if they are "too strong") can lead to a different but still POV bias. It's far less common (since most topics are not universally described that way when studied via high quality sources) but no less capable of being POV. Editors need to watch for bias both ways and check cites, to accurately represent the topic.

In this case the complaining editors don't seem to have done that job properly

No-one of the complainants made any attempt to talk about their concerns, or to see if we could address them. I'm well known over many years as very approachable and willing to talk about article concerns, move to talk page, seek uninvolved input, give good faith, even retract until resolved, if there's a problem. Nobody tried.

Nobody said a thing so I found out only at the "last minute" and had to respond on that basis

1. The hook was checked and confirmed by an uninvolved DYK reviewer: Hook is interesting and well sourced (review is mandatory for DYK).
2. User:Simon Burchell raised a concern on a page I don't watch. He didn't try to notifying me or discuss his concerns with me in any way, at any time, to see if we could address them. He didn't indicate at any point in his post that he'd checked any sources or formed a view on the sources, or that he had any issue with the words not matching the sources, or even that he'd read the article to check it out. The hook was only in prep at that time, not even in the queue, so he could have asked or notified me easily and we'd have sorted it out then. I would have put it on hold for that, unasked.
3. Simon's comment seemed/seems to be based on personal unchecked belief unlinked to any reliable source noted by him, that the hook seemed in his view peacock-y. He didn't seem to have examined the sources behind the words. He didn't discuss that these had been reviewed and specifically confirmed by an uninvolved DYK reviewer as backing the article and hook. His comment didn't suggest he did any review of cites, contradictory knowledge, or point to any specific mischaracterization where the hook did not match the sources or other significant views existed in other (omitted) sources. It was an appropriate concern to check and raise, to be sure, but one checks one's impressions before putting them into Misplaced Pages. I did. DYK reviewers did. Simon's comment suggested he may not have.
4. Simon's concern was noticed by User:Alex Shih, who refactored the hook. Again, this was without notifying or asking me, or letting me know in any way of it, so we could address the matter, and while it was in prep (I apologise for the lack of communication on my part).
5. Also, again, it was completely unchecked - Alex too had done no checking of the article or cites, even though the original post made clear it was personal belief. (Alex later apologized for that: The change appeared to be trivial at the initial glance)
6. I found this out only by chance, after DYKBot notified me it hit Main Page and was in a form that did not convey the reader-enticing tension of the original sources. I did not say "put it back", or any kind of pressure. I posted to Alex's talk page my disappointment that he hadn't bothered to ask me or even notify me to talk first, I then identified for him the exact source cites-all plainly in the article-that it was based on so he could see why it had been as it was ("I wish you'd asked me... If there was a question, couldn't you have let me know of the discussion here, so I could point out cites or locate the ones you felt missing, rather than water down the accuracy of the hook"). That was all I wrote.
7. Alex, seeing my note, re-reviewed the cites and article, and agreed, and without further conversation he reinstated (Upon checking the citations and the detailed explanations you have provided, I have re-inserted both of the descriptive terms).
8. The Main page hook was therefore based on my view and that of not one, but two independent reviewers who checked the cites and their representation themselves.

After this, I was not notified of the thread at Jimbo's talk page. I was not notified of the thread at NPOV/N. So I could not respond sooner. This was the first thread anyone told me about.

Direct comments to those who complained

• @ Johnuniq: You seem to assume bad faith (That is disgraceful...self-congratulatory twaddle...someone can point to a bunch of excited commentary). Excited commentary, really? Management Today? Independent? 80% market share? Did you find a dissenting reliable dispassionate source of any kind before complaining (link if so)? I looked hard and didn't. You also seem to mis-represent the hook (I wrote a hook about a reputation that was from something, you quote it as a reputation it has). If the hook does not fairly and pretty darn accurately characterize the significant views on the topic, or significant sourced views are omitted, can you provide examples and cites, or show where you offer them in previous threads?

• Johnbod: I think your complaint is more that it didn't sufficiently make clear "prior to its receivership" or some such, ie the characterization is not peacockry but the applicable company needed to be clearer. (NPOV trumps other policies; rarely, that may mean we describe that perceptions were that strong, if sources suggest that would accurately represent significant views.) If the hook was inappropriate, how would you explain that the only two editors (both uninvolved) to have explicitly said they reviewed the cites, both seem to have felt them suitable, even though they surely share all our strong dislike of peacockry. If the description itself is mischaracterized, as opposed to "may imply current company has that reputation too", did you check any sources to form your view that you "entirely agree the language was inappropriate". Of course it's possible it was right for the article but not for DYK - if so that would indeed be a "DYK reviewer's guideline" discussion, and I'd encourage it. (I'm not a DYK regular)

• User:Simon Burchell: You complained after that this didn't have discussion, but never asked me or tried to discuss it even though you were the one who first commented. You went to NPOV/N and complained there and still didn't notify me or talk about your concerns. In all these posts, not one actual cite or fact in any, and not one notification or attempt to talk between us. Then you complain it got reinstated by those who did check it. Duh.

(I think they are all aware of this thread, if not can someone notify them for me)

In summary: We see peacock terms so much, we (I too) assume when reliable sources concur in strong positive views, it's peacockry. This article, on a dissolved company, was not, and the reviewers who did check cites, concurred. FT2  16:12, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

And have you notified any of the people you make points about above? Not me for sure. I don't need to check sources to see the language, in Misplaced Pages's voice, was completely inappropriate for a DYK hook. In the article itself it is attributed to sources (a bit vaguely) and referenced and that seemed more of less ok. The article begins by saying it is about a "brand" and the brand continues, though under different ownership - if anything that the original owners are out of the picture makes the hook worse, since all the praise related to the old glory days of the brand, but this is not clear in the hook. Johnbod (talk) 16:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

It's definitely a good idea to avoid words like that in an Encyclopaedia. Looking through the article content there seems many such words quoted from a variety of sources - not to be harsh but it rather reads like a press release :( As I said, try to avoid using such words or extensive quotes and rely on proper encyclopedic tone. As John says; in the hook you adopted Misplaced Pages's voice. Which is definitely inappropriate. Can you explain why you chose to do this? --Errant 16:41, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

But if all the reliable sources use that tone, isn't changing it to "encyclopedic tone" bordering on WP:OR? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:55, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Not really. Over-the-top adjectives can be toned down while still remaining true to the essence of what the source reports: "famous" becomes "noted", "extremely" becomes "considerable", etc. and nothing of value is lost. In those cases where peacock terms simply must be used, direct quotation takes it out of Misplaced Pages's voice and puts it in the voice of the source. (One should also consider whether a source given to superlatives is all that reliable to begin with, or whether their reliability lies in, say, news items and not so much in features. Or whether their reporting of hard facts is reliable, not their evaluation of quality is not. How is is possible, for instance, to say with any authority that a business's success is a "direct result" of any one or two specific factors? Those kinds of connections are difficult to establish with any certainty, and should always be taken with more than a grain of salt, no matter what the source is -- unless direct and specific evidence via surveys or research is the basis for the statement. Correlation -- if it is that -- is not the same as causation.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:53, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Karrimor contains a para in the lead reading: "By the 1970s and again in the 1990s Karrimor was widely considered a world-renowned innovator and manufacturer of outdoor pursuit products, with an exceptional track record and a formidable reputation in its field. From the 1990s, mainstream media, business media, and enthusiast publications routinely used terms such as "legendary", "tremendous" tradition, "outstanding", and "world renowned" in connection with both Karrimor and its products." (my italics) This is unreferenced, which it should not be, though there are some relevant refs lower down; how adequate I'm not sure. The italic bits do at least attribute the peacockery to others, but in a DYK hook this is often not possible (though it wasn't attempted in this case), and what may be acceptable in an article is not in a hook. I take a softer line on WP:PEACOCK than many, but good referencing and attribution are essential. Johnbod (talk) 23:40, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The other problem, of course, is that the hook suggests (I know it says "was", but that's not obvious to parse) that Karrimor is a high-quality brand today - which it isn't; it's one of Sports Direct's many "pile 'em high, sell 'em cheap" brands, and the goods are made in China now. Black Kite (talk) 23:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

1. Johnbod - yet again you didn't bother to read before assuming bad faith. "And have you notified any of the people you make points about above?" See where it says rather clearly "(I think they are all aware of this thread, if not can someone notify them for me)". In this thread, you don't check before diving in with ad hominen, and you next to assert you don't need to check sources to know if a wording characterizes them neutrally.

   Its an old established Wiki principle that if it isn't clear X is a murderer, don't use the term as it's a strong one. But if a competent court and appeals process ruled they are, and no significant reputable dissenting views seem to exist, then that is usually the word to use, strong or otherwise. Therefore many articles start "X is a convicted murderer" even if strong. We do it even if some readers may not notice nuances that the intro briefly touches on. Same for dissolved companies that have unusual, unanimous, positive, acclaim. We don't water that down either in contradiction to cites and NPOV, in the absence of some actual source or verifiable significant view. We do check carefully since exceptional claims need exceptional sources. Did you check the sources? No. You don't think you need to know if our key mandatory policy governing the tone of writing, WP:NPOV, has something to say. The reviewers did, and the cites are, as you'd expect, fully provided in the main body (both reviewers noted this and both state explicitly they had reviewed sources).

2. Errant - see point above to Johnbod. Also note, I wrote the article and hook. It was cleared by two reviewers - the second one was asked to review and given cites to do so, which was in a rush as it was on the main page and misrepresenting NPOV. His immediate response was that he apologized for failing to discuss or check, and that having reviewed the cites, he had reverted himself. If all sources say "IBM is a technology company", we don't need to start IBM with "According to the US and UK government and Forbes IBM is a technology company". If all sources unanimously seem to say X product is ground breaking, then we represent that by saying the same, and citing it. If all sources seem to say X was world renowned or had a tremendous reputation or was a world leader, we say that, too. That's different from constructing the view ourselves (ie WP:SYNTH). See also comment to Beyond My Ken.
3. Beyond My Ken - Thank you. You say (and I agree) Over-the-top adjectives can be toned down while still remaining true to the essence of what the source reports: "famous" becomes "noted", "extremely" becomes "considerable", etc. and nothing of value is lost. This didn't happen. Why not? Because the one person who queried it while at DYK, and asked about it long before Main Page (or even DYK queue), at DYK Prep, didn't bother to ask me about it, or check his cites, or do anything to suggest his concern was more than personal view (WP:NOR). I agree with what you say, but it passed a DYK review, then I saw a changed version on Main Page, and found an uninformed query and an unchecked reply, and upon checking cites the reverting reviewer reversed his mind. Had notification happened, none of this would be needed. To underline that, it's a week later now, and this has been forum-shopped at Jimbo and NPOV/N and this today is the first I've been notified or able to comment. I myself would have withdrawn or put it on hold, if I'd known there was a query at the time. By then, it was too late. See my comment to Black Kite for what we can do in future, though.
4. Black Kite - As the article barely says much about the brand - which is almost all that's left - except that it's now made in China, that's stating the obvious. Like spoilers in plot summaries, we don't (and often can't) insulate readers against failure to read. If we should, on the main page, that's an important DYK reviewer discussion (which I'd encourage for sure) but not an AN issue.

FT2  00:39, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Yadda-yadda. What bad faith? Laziness perhaps - I won't bother to unpick the logic behind "I think they are all aware of this thread, if not can someone notify them for me" - apparently attributing mind-reading abilities, and the responsibility to do things for you, to other readers of this page. Yes, it was reviewed by two reviewers, but they were wrong to pass the hook - it happens. They were somewhat strong-armed, & should have resisted. You still don't seem to see the problem with the hook as a main page hook, though it has been explained sufficiently above. As someone on Wikipediocry says (naturally they are hot on the trail), if you had explained that the Karrimor products are now cheap crap, but were once great, that wouldn't have been so bad, but the article doesn't do this, still less the hook. To say "the article barely says much about the brand" is nonsense - both most of the article and all of the hook are about the products and the brand, not the company. There are a lot of statements that are ok in an article, with proper attribution, context, referencing etc, but certainly not ok as a flat statement in a DYK hook in the voice of Misplaced Pages. Johnbod (talk) 01:01, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I see. And your reliable sources for "Karrimor products are now cheap crap" is at which links exactly? I looked to get coverage and views on the new post-2004 company's product quality from reliable sources. If it exists, please add it. But don't criticize those who stick to WP:VERIFIABLE sources. Also if you want to make absurd personal attacks (strong arming indeed) then gods sake check facts. One reviewer never discussed but reviewed and moved on, never speaking with me about it at all. The other was simply told I wished he'd asked me first, and given snippets of the cites backing the hook wording, and without discussing with me or any other dialog formed his own decision to change his mind. FT2  01:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not writing the article, am I? If you can dig up laudatory reviews from the "mainstream media, business media, and enthusiast publications" of the 1960s to 1980s" you should be able to find more recent reviews, but nothing is said. On strong-arming, the diffs are above, let people make up their own minds (also re who is making personal attacks). What date is the model of "Karrimor hiking trainer" in the lead pic, by the way? The photo has a 2012 date, the shoes looks new, & have pretty 2012-ish styling to my eyes. Johnbod (talk) 01:23, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Your point is made. You feel the article should have contained views that don't seem to exist in reliable sources but you "know" are right (I might or might not "know" too but I keep my personal impressions right where they belong: off Misplaced Pages and away from mainspace content editing). So in your view WP:V and WP:NOR don't apply to you or any editor claiming to "know" differently from sources. You demand I insert this unsourced unverifiable negative WP:NOR but asked for sources to back that OR - well, you could care less, "I'm not writing the article". Well, I was, I found no sources, so I didn't include anything on the matter. If you feel someone should add a negative, it helps if you can show it's sourceable. I mentioned that I "could not find" sources. I invited you to try. You reply with withering sarcasm that if sources could be found for the dissolved 1960-1990s company it's my failing ("you should be able to") if they aren't found/don't exist for a different company of the same name founded 10 years on. As for the shoe, nothing like a failed attempt to add more fuel to a failed criticism. The shoe is there for one reason only - it was already there, added by someone else when the article was a stub. Ask the article's old author, if you want to know more. FT2  02:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• Commenting briefly. (i) Why is this at WP:AN? Because it was mentioned on Jimbo's talk page? Open-ended discussion (and walls of text) about these issues won't get anywhere unless someone has a proposal that requires administrative action or a community discussion of sanctions or restrictions (unlikely, I would have thought). (ii) Discussion of the article should take place at the article talk page. Discussion of the hook, aimed at catching such things in future, should take place at WT:DYK. (iii) Having looked at this, my view is that the word 'formidable' should have been dropped from the hook and the dates when it had that reputation added (to avoid the impression that it has that reputation now). (iv) The article does have problems unrelated to its DYK appearance, but I'll mention those on the article talk page, not here. Carcharoth (talk) 01:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

There may well be improvements, if new sources are found.
i,ii - Administrative not merits, no comment needed.
iii - makes sense, but when a only comes to light at Main Page itself, there isn't much to be done except ask those who reviewed to recheck cites they didn't look at, and see if they think the hook fairly and neutrally represents them - the reviewer considered then that he'd incorrectly removed them. Notification while at prep by those involved in complaining or responding would have been crucial and allowed discussion (or dates added like you suggest as a resolution) while "on hold". That failed to happen because nobody thought to let me know about an edit to the hook, and the edit or issue wasn't mentioned on the hook subpage I was watching either, nor the article talk page, nor tagged in the article. (I'd have put it on hold myself if I'd known.) The reviewer apologized, and the lapse seems atypical. Notification of the other threads was important and that should have happened, but isn't a DYK matter.
iv - DYK isn't FA quality, there will be improvements possible for sure. I'd been updating from a valuable new source covering detail of the "missing years" 1993-1999 (a local newspaper's searchable archive) when notified the article was now on the main page (Mainpaged 00:00 Aug 17, Tag commented out as a result 05:25 Aug 17). The article was tagged "in use" (DYK isn't static). Perhaps oxygen will reveal other sources. I don't doubt oxygen will help improve it, as it would any but the very best articles. Haven't read your comments, but look forward to doing so. FT2  02:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

From near the top: "Shouldn't this all be moved to WP:AN then given its overtones, so Alex Shih and FT2, who apparently are administrators who did not administer very well, can answer the community and any future remedy can be explored. Rather then spread here and yon? Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC)" But I agree with you. Johnbod (talk) 01:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• The proposal seems to be that self-congratulatory twaddle is ok so long as there are sources that verify the claims. No—not at the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and particularly not on the main page. The question of whether one brand of running shoe has a "formidable reputation" cannot be resolved by scientific investigation—verification boils down to what commentary currently occurs in sources that might be reliable, and it's unlikely that any source has conducted a serious investigation comparing the reputations of companies making a particular product. However, that issue is not the core of the matter—what matters is that any manufacturer of running shoes could find some puffery that can verifiably be applied to their product, but we should not take such an approach. An encyclopedia should focus on facts like how many shoes have been sold, rather than whether a company has a formidable reputation (for how long has that been true? does any similar company also have a formidable reputation? does the formidable reputation have any measurable effect?). Questions of good/bad faith are irrelevant—what matters is providing some guidance for DYK hooks that are used in the future. There is no need to have a formal guideline, but this discussion should provide a clear mandate that text that may appear promotional in nature should not be used. Johnuniq (talk) 01:48, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

No. The proposal is that NPOV overrides all but BLP, V, OR, NOT etc. Your point is a straw man as nobody's suggested for a moment that it's ok "if sources verify the claims" (you can find sources for any view!). The point is, if there is an exceptional claim, and it has exceptional sources (wide ranging, reputable, unambiguous, unqualified), and even a diligent search reveals no dissenting voices then NPOV says we call a murderer a murderer, a death a death, a ground-breaking innovation that changed a field, a ground-breaking innovation, and a renowned company with a "very strong" or "tremendous" reputation, a company that has a "very strong" or "tremendous" reputation. We don't hype up, but the rare occasion it's an accurate NPOV representation of unambiguous dispassionate sources with a reputation for level heads, and no dissent, then NPOV governs and we don't rewrite downwards either. As Ken says above, there are compromises, and I agree. But those require discussion to highlight the matter and no discussion happened as no notification happened. As for "unlikely", no need to guess or introduce original research when we have facts. For example, Management Today ran a national competition for Best UK Factory - you think they didn't consider that a "serious investigation" in judging? If the sources were all guessing randomly, then there would be others less favorable. There were none. I looked. It doesn't mean none will ever be found. But I couldn't find any dissenting views, and we report what reliable sources say, if reputable and credible, not what we (WP:NOR) think they should have said. FT2  02:34, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunatly, given the fact it's considered not just perfectly OK but a violation not to utilise WP:OR (in the sense of "Misplaced Pages makes this up only for use on Misplaced Pages") when it comes to capitalisation/formatting for band/group names, album/song names, and even on occasion personal names in the name of the almighty WP:MOS, I'm afraid this line of argument, although IMHO correct, will wind up making Sisyphus look like an exceptionally successful guy when it came to rock-pushing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:07, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

And you think that for those rare occasions where it is verifiable that a company has a formidable reputation (an undefinable term), that it would be helpful to say so on Misplaced Pages's main page? That's where editorial judgment comes in. Johnuniq (talk) 03:39, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

What constitutes notification?

This is motivated by this ANI thread, especially the part after the closed box.

Our current rules say one must notify by adding a notice to a talk page.

Now that we have our new notification system, using the parties' names (as a wikilink) in the ANI thread will send a notification. While this is arguably not on their talk page, that is a detail that can be fixed with a minor edit to the instructions.

I think it would be a good decision to reach a consensus as a community that such a notification constitutes notification, for two reasons:

1. Despite the big bold notice, editors fail to use the notification template just about every day. In contrast, it would be easier to encourage a best practice behavior of using the ID of an editor when referring to them (perhaps just the first time in the thread) rather than a shorthand reference to their name. With this practice, editors wouldn't have to remember to do something special when posting to AN or ANI
2. Editors have to grapple with the conflict between interaction bans and notification requirements. While it is easy to say that the notification requirement trumps the interaction ban, as Orlady notes, this can be contentious. Allowing the small red notification icon to count as notification might be a nice solution, as the editor would not have to add a full section.

Of course, that raises the opposite issue. If an editor has an interaction ban (as opposed to a "don't even mention them ban", does using their name in a post constitute violation of the ban? I suggest the answer should be no, but we should watch for gratuitous use, which might constitute gaming.

Apologies is this has been discussed before, as seems likely, but as the linked thread indicates, the answers aren't known by all, if this has been settled.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:30, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

You cannot rely on the new notification system as editors have the option of turning those notifications off. --NeilN 15:35, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• Since it is easy to turn off notifications for everything except a talk page message, relying on the notification system is not bulletproof. People with interaction bans can just say in the AN/ANI thread they haven't notified because of an interaction ban, and someone else can do it. There seems to be a large number of people who check whether someone was notified, in order to scream at the people who don't do it, so they can make themselves useful and do it themselves. I don't think this needs an expansion of the instructions, just common sense and the ability to not freak completely out if someone forgets. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• Plus the notification system may not actually work 100% of the time when it is turned on, for example if you use the {{user}} template or similar. GiantSnowman 15:48, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Two good objections, but I'm not going to cave yet. Taking the easy one first, I didn't know that the {{user}} didn't do a notification. I bet that can be fixed. Ironically, I had never used it before today, and used it to let u:Orlady know she was mentioned, but that obviously failed. Regarding turning it off, I should have realized that was an option. Are there good reasons for turning it off? I find it quite useful. I wouldn't mandate that people turn it on, but I would have no problem announcing that our system for notification is the ...drum roll... notification system,. If you want to turn it off, do so, but don't complain if you aren't notified. I'll feel differently if there are some technical problems forcing some to turn it off.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Re:{{user}} - it's not that it doesn't create a notification at all, because it does, but it's that it doesn't do so 100% of the time. Did Sphilbrick (talk · contribs) work for instance? Either way it's a bug that needs fixing ASAP. GiantSnowman 16:00, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Oddly, I just posted here, mentioning my name twice, once with each option. As I did so, I saw the notification icon turn on. But I was surprised to see thatrot said it was from you. In an additional oddity, you had edited the section before, so I thought maybe it was picking up your name form the prior section, but now I get it. I did get one notification, form you. I didn't get one from myself, but that might be a feature, not a bug.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:07, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Same goes for {{ping}} - did @Sphilbrick: work at the 2 locations I've used it in last minute? GiantSnowman 16:21, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I did get a notification (one) 13 minutes ago so yes)--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:35, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• I did receive a notification of this discussion, but perceived that other things I needed to do had more immediate priority than responding here. --Orlady (talk) 16:34, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• It's useful to recognize that this feature of the new notification system can be disabled. I have found it to be very effective at notifying me that my userid has been mentioned, although oftentimes the mention is an inconsequential one that does not require my follow-up. I did assume (apparently incorrectly) that the user whose name I mentioned is one who would be paying attention to those notifications.
• As it happens, I'm not under an interaction ban with this user, so I could not have claimed that as a reason for not notifying him. Rather, he has made it very clear that he will not tolerate my posting on his talk page for any reason, and I did state in the Arbcom proceeding that I would endeavor to avoid interactions. Explaining all that always comes across as "airing dirty linen in public", so I'm not eager to do so. In this instance, my objective was to find someone who had no history of interaction with him or me, and whose opinion he would respect, to talk to him about the length of his talk page. (Maybe next time I need to use a "Find a random admin" script to find such a party.) --Orlady (talk) 16:50, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• Time to move on, I'd say. GiantSnowman 16:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with moving on re that specific issue, however, it did spur me to think that deeming the notification system as a notification would solve a number of problems.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Request to lift Humanpublic's topic ban

I just saw the thread on me above, and realized that I am considered topic-banned, via Humanpublic. I'd like to request a removal of the ban. I haven't edited topics related to religion since my block expired. Minorview (talk) 18:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The editor has only made one article edit since their block expired on May 2, hardly sufficient evidence for lifting a ban. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Without getting into the substance of the request, there are many, many ways that editors can make positive contributions to the encyclopedia while making few article edits. bd2412 T 19:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• @BD2412 - That's certainly true, but the editor has made none of those kinds of edits either. Their entire contribution list since the block ended consists of that one article edit, talk page b.s., and this request. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:19, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• None of which remotely justify the ending of a topic ban. Particularly not with what appears to be a troll request anyway. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:31, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• Hence my avoiding getting into the substance of the request. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. Firstly, you and Humanpublic are the same person, as confirmed by Checkuser evidence, so the section name should read "request to lift my topic ban". Secondly, the "Humanpublic" account is indefinitely blocked, so this request is technically pointless as it stands. Thirdly, BMK's evidence is pretty clear in that you have barely edited anything since your block expired. And finally, there's little evidence that you have changed your ways, and I see evidence that you have remained disruptive, as per comments on your talk page and Strangesad's talk page. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:49, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. No evidence of collaborative or even constructive editing elsewhere since the sanction was imposed. Someone not using his real name (talk) 19:25, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose, because there is no evidence to suggest that you can edit productively anywhere, let alone in this area. Show, by your work in the article space, that you can edit within policy over a period of time, and you might have a case. But no, I think the topic ban needs to stay in place for now. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 19:47, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per Lukeno94. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 01:17, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Request for lift of topic ban

Hi,

Some time ago, I was banned from the page Chelsea Manning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (né Bradley Manning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)) due to tendentious editing regarding Manning's gender identity. In the light of current news, the ban, more than anything, looks rather foolish. Sceptre 20:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

You don't happen to have a link to the discussion lying around, do you? UltraExactZZ ~ Did 20:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Here it is. To be honest, I'm still bitter over the way I was treated for presenting reliable sources regarding her gender identity that we now recognise, but I'm also willing to edit constructively. Sceptre 20:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I get that. But to be fair.... gosh, kind of a lot has happened since then. Would you have any objection to a 1RR restriction, at least temporarily, on anything relating to Chelsea Manning? Might help ease back into things, if there is consensus to lift the ban - and might also ease the concerns of other editors. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 20:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll be amenable to that. Sceptre 00:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, then - Support. That said, what's past is past. Don't let people goad you into re-fighting old battles. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 01:55, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• I'm going to oppose this simply because of the language used in the request. Stating "the ban, more than anything, looks rather foolish" does not persuade me that the ban should be lifted, regardless of any truth in the statement. After all, it's the kind of tendentious statement you appear to have been TBANNED for. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:55, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support lifting the topic ban. While it is correct that Manning had gender issues, there were no reliable sources to support the changes you made in 2012. So, nobody should feel foolish, rather the BLP issue was handled correctly back in 2012. You did last edit the article on May 5th 2012, the ban discussion was in June, and you promised not edit voluntarily, so I would have been inclined to give you another chance back then. It's also been over a year, so it seems reasonable to lift the ban with the condition specified by UltraExactZZ.I am One of Many (talk) 23:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

  While I don't want to rehash arguments, I would like to put the record straight and clarify that: a) I did agree, rather quickly, that there weren't reliable sources on the issue of the name (especially as she has now chosen a much nicer name); and b) I also put forward sources for the existence of gender identity disorder, which are now wholly accepted as reliable (and are from generally reliable sources) and are currently used as such in the article (the Lamo chat logs and the Article 32 hearing in particular). I really would like to nip this "didn't present sources" thing in the bud, because, as a search of any discussion I took part in the talk page or project discussion boards shows, I actually did. Sceptre 00:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

There were no sources put forward at that time that Manning had expressed a wish to be identified as female. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Andy, I said I didn't want to rehash arguments, so I'd prefer you not to either. But as to your point: neither were there weren't any sources put forward that Manning herself expressed a wish to be identified as male . As I pointed out multiple times, the only statements that came out were from Manning's family and supporters, which defence witness Lauren McNamara would later describe as "silence and denial". And, indeed, as you and many other people seem to be arguing, an individual's statement of gender identity is more important than whatever others say. Sceptre 00:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Given the acknowledged gender identity disorder that is debatable. Some state Breanna even. Though very few go as far as Scoops on March 22, 2012, "Manning identifies as a woman. She has not transitioned yet, but stated her preference for the name Breanna." So I disagree about sources, as these were 2011 to 2012, but it was not widely reported or thought of highly. This is why I AGF about the issue. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Support - Given the narrow scope and the way in which Misplaced Pages works, there seems to be zero chance that the gender identity issue will present any future problem given recent events. While the wording used may not be the best, the issue concerning the topic ban has been ultimately resolved. A voluntary 1 RR would be a show of good-faith, but I do not see is a requirement for lifting a now moot dispute which lead to the topic-ban. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Neutral, not good -- Sceptre is continuing to argue the previous decision rather than showing a willingness to move on. NE Ent 00:52, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Support - Sceptre is one of our most experienced and knowledgeable transgender editors. I think our community really needs her input in articles relating to Private Manning if these articles are going to remain up to Misplaced Pages standards during this complex process of rewriting them. The behavior that Sceptre engaged in that other editors found objectionable happened over a year ago. I think the ban should be lifted completely, and Sceptre should be allowed 3 reverts on this topic like any other editor. In fact, I think in an ideal world, Sceptre would be made an administrator so that there is someone actually knowledgeable about transgender issues who can step in when vandals try to deface these articles, referring to people by old names, incorrect pronouns, and so on. Rebecca (talk) 01:06, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

You're probably right. But the voluntary (and temporary!) 1RR will help Sceptre ease back into what seems to be a busy area of the project these days. First things first, no need to rush headlong into drama. (He said, posting on AN) UltraExactZZ ~ Did 01:55, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose. Had Sceptre been content to merely ask for the topic ban to be lifted on the grounds that sufficient time had passed, and that circumstances had changed, I would have concurred. However, I have to suggest that Sceptre's attempts to justify her original behaviour - which was widely seen as a WP:BLP violation, given that Manning at the time had not only made no public statement regarding any wish to be identified as female, but had made clear to the Bradley Manning support group that at that time s/he wished to be addressed as 'Brad' or 'Bradley', and identified as male - removing the ban would be premature. Violations of WP:BLP policy need to be taken seriously, and attempts by Sceptre to suggest that she was somehow 'right all along' make me wonder whether she actually ever understood what the issue was in the first place. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Strong oppose It is evident in her current statement that Sceptre intends advocacy and already has chosen to view "reading the talk page at the moment it does get hard not to take all the blatant transphobia (from admins, even) personally." and "I desperately want to help with trans issues on Misplaced Pages (especially the abuse of COMMONNAME that comes up every time someone comes out), that I fear my topic ban would prevent me from doing." <== This is great...someone else to spout off "transphobe" accusations into the thread...yeah, that'll help. :/
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:31, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• "By all means he can have surgery, wear women's clothes or have himself transformed into a dolphin, but leave wikipedia out of it." I don't know what the encyclopedia gains from keeping one of its most prolific trans editors banned from a talk page whilst allowing a person whose entire knowledge of transsexuality comes from South Park to edit freely. Sceptre 02:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Acknowledging one's personal opinions, feelings, and biases is not the same as advocacy. Your own biases are practically oozing out of the computer screen, Berean Hunter, so it takes a lot of gall for you to accuse someone else of "advocacy." Rebecca Weaver (talk) 03:02, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Consider blocking since she just violated the ban and couldn't wait for a consensus to form here. That is why the ban is there to begin with.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Support - no reason to ban the editor from the topic now Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• Now blocked as an ArbCom Enforcement.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 03:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• 12 hours is a slap on the wrist, but that's fine. That being said, given advocacy appears to be Sceptre's intent rather than improvement of the article, I am inclined to oppose lifting the topic ban. Resolute 03:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• Very weak oppose -- I was thinking of appealing the block for Sceptre, but given the tone of discussion here, I'm not sure that would be a good thing. On the other hand, I'm not sure it would be a bad thing either. (Note: I closed the BLPBAN discussion last year.) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:38, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Berean Hunter. Shows no understanding why they were topic banned in the first place so no guarantee behavior would not re-occur. --NeilN 03:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• Sceptre has situated knowledge due to her position as a trans* individual. The people above who want to penalize her for that sadden me deeply. I think it would be best to lift her topic ban and place her under mentorship. If her mentor finds that her editing has not changed since her topic ban began, that person can reinstate it. We get the best of both worlds here. She can edit and if she acts disruptively, the topic ban returns, ending the disruption. --Guerillero | My Talk 04:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Please clarify exactly who you mean by "people above who want to penalize her for that". As an administrator you should know better than to make ill-worded accusations of bigotry. --NeilN 04:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support ending topic ban. Sceptre jumped the gun and the ban served its purposes at that time. Circumstances have changed, and it is time to move on. Sceptre is advised to be cautious. Cullen Let's discuss it 04:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support lifting the topic ban; this is more than a year ago. Binksternet (talk) 05:02, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• In line with Sarek, a weak oppose. I would be supporting, had Sceptre stopped at Andy, I said I didn't want to rehash arguments, so I'd prefer you not to either. That would have been restrained, a sign of understanding, and respectful, all at once. Cheers, Lindsay 05:19, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit Filter 554

I just thought I'd notify any edit filter managers that AnomieBOT kept repeatedly triggering that filter on the page Inna discography, so I removed a ref. Someone who knows more about this filter or what it does might want to look into this. Ginsuloft (talk) 23:25, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

If "top100.blog" is included to the edit (the link that AnomieBOT was romaniantop100.blogspot.com/), it's disallowed. Blogspot sites are not considered reliable sources anyways. Elockid 23:31, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Filters such as this can make vandalism more difficult to revert. Most of the "singles" section was missing; I've restored it. Peter James (talk) 23:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• Elockid, whether or not it is considered a reliable source is invalid if the purpose of the link is to verify accuracy of an otherwise established article. Primary sources "are" allowed, including blogs for this purpose. What I suggest doing in the future, Ginsuloft, is replacing such links with "shortened" versions to the same destination using any one of the free URL shortening sites (like is.gd). Happy editing! Technical 13 (talk) 00:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

No, it's not. If it was considered valid, then there would more widespread use. Even when checking Special:Linksearch, it's not seeing any use. Elockid 00:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

The far better option would be to find a reference that isn't at a blog. The reason blogs aren't considered reliable is that I can go register a blog, post something, and then go to an article and use that blog post as proof that whatever I said in the article is correct. If the fact in question needs a blog to verify its accuracy... honestly, it probably doesn't need to be in the article. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 01:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

@Technical 13: URL-shortening sites are on the Spam blacklist for this exact reason. Graham87 02:04, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Restriction appeal

A bit more than a year ago I agreed to two editing restrictions in order to be unblocked, with the possibility of those restrictions being lifted after a year. I would now appreciate that being done.--John Foxe (talk) 23:47, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Support NE Ent 01:18, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support with understanding that further problems in the Mormon area could lead to a topic or site ban. I'm all for giving him a second chance, especially since I haven't seen a problem involving him during the past year. GregJackP Boomer! 01:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Administrative backlog