Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:48, 3 November 2012

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

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

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

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

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

Template:Active editnotice

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

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

Archives

Index no archives yet (create)

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

• WP:CR
• WP:RFCL
• WP:ANRFC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other areas tracking old discussions

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

Administrative discussions

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

(Initiated 35 days ago on 13 December 2024) challenge of close at AN was archived nableezy - 05:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Sander.v.Ginkel unblock request

(Initiated 33 days ago on 15 December 2024) voorts (talk/contributions) 00:55, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Requests for comment

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

(Initiated 102 days ago on 7 October 2024) Tough one, died down, will expire tomorrow. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 81 days ago on 28 October 2024) Participation/discussion has mostly stopped & is unlikely to pick back up again. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

(Initiated 72 days ago on 6 November 2024) RfC expired on 6 December 2024 . No new comments in over a week. Bogazicili (talk) 15:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 71 days ago on 8 November 2024), RFC expired weeks ago. GoodDay (talk) 21:33, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Israel#RfC

(Initiated 56 days ago on 22 November 2024) Legobot has removed the RFC notice. Can we please get an interdependent close. TarnishedPath 23:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

 Note: Ongoing discussion, please wait a week or two. Bogazicili (talk) 14:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Thomas Sewell (neo-Nazi)#RfC on the Inclusion of Guard Actions and Court Findings on Motivations

(Initiated 31 days ago on 17 December 2024) Legobot has removed the RFC notice and the last comment was a few days ago. Can we get an independent close please. TarnishedPath 22:50, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Estado Novo (Portugal)#RFC Should the Estado Novo be considered fascist?

(Initiated 10 days ago on 8 January 2025) RfC opened last month, and was re-opened last week, but hasn't received further discussion. Outcome clear and unlikely to change if it were to run the full 30 days. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 00:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Does this need a close? Aaron Liu (talk) 02:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I would have just closed it myself, but I don't exactly feel comfortable doing so since I've responded and have a bias about how it should close. Not opposed to just letting it expire, though. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 23:23, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I think it should just be left to expire. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Deletion discussions

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 20#Category:Belarusian saints

(Initiated 28 days ago on 20 December 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 28 days ago on 20 December 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 31#Category:Disambig-Class Star Trek pages

(Initiated 17 days ago on 31 December 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 1#Category:Category-Class 20th Century Studios pages of NA-importance

(Initiated 16 days ago on 1 January 2025) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 11 days ago on 6 January 2025) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Arab migrations to the Levant#Merger Proposal

(Initiated 115 days ago on 25 September 2024) Open for a while, requesting uninvolved closure. Andre🚐 22:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Winter fuel payment abolition backlash#Merge proposal

(Initiated 81 days ago on 29 October 2024) There are voices on both sides (ie it is not uncontroversial) so a non-involved editor is needed to evaluate consensus and close this. Thanks. PamD 09:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Israel–Hamas war#Survey

(Initiated 72 days ago on 7 November 2024) Looking for uninvolved close in CTOP please, only a few !votes in past month. I realise this doesn't require closing, but it is preferred in such case due to controversial nature of topic. CNC (talk) 10:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

(Initiated 21 days ago on 27 December 2024) Proposed merge discussion originally opened on 30 May 2024, closed on 27 October 2024, and reopened on 27 December 2024 following the closure being overturned at AN. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

Block extension review

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

Please see User_talk:Delicious_carbuncle#October_2012 and related discussion User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise#Revert_please Nobody Ent 22:34, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with the block extension. DC's claim that blocked users get additional leeway on their talk pages is in conflict with the principle itself. Block users do not get to use their talk pages to continue disputes in a calculated manner, they are given more leeway because it is recognized they may be angry and lash out due to the block. Further, declaring that one will sit out the block without indicating they will stop the behavior they were blocked for seems like a good reason to extend the block. If they don't recognize they can't keep doing the things that got them blocked, then the blocks should be continued until they do. MBisanz 23:02, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Reasonable extension, since he was again intentionally violating the I-ban. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:17, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

An interaction ban is a way of telling two or more users that the community finds that they do more harm than good when they interact or comment on one another. DC is free to disagree with this position, but he is not free to deliberately ignore a valid community imposed sanction. If he lacks the self control to just leave it alone then blocking is more than appropriate. Personally I feel like he is getting off lightly since this is such an obvious case of deliberate, premeditated violation of said restrictions. I don't like that we have to do things this way, it would be better if people who openly despise each other could just grow up and learn to avoid one another, but that clearly is not the case here. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:22, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

• Disagree with extension- DC's first post after the block did not violate the interaction ban. Then, an admin pokes him about it, and DC responds. Later, Future Perfect shows up and lengthens the block. This looks like entrapment by the admin corps. "Hey, why don't you go bait DC into commenting on his block, while he's hot and bothered by just being blocked, and then I will swoop in and lengthen it?" Of course, that probably isn't how it happened, but this is what it looks like. Since an admin needled him about it, DC probably thought it was ok to talk about it. We non-admin editors believe that you admins are united in thought when acting in an administrative capacity. So, if this extension stands, shouldn't Drmies be blocked for baiting DC? Cla68 (talk) 23:25, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
• The extension is fine. If DC thinks that he can ignore the interaction ban as long as he "sits out the block", then perhaps we should give him a block he can't sit out. T. Canens (talk) 23:37, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

• A comment like that, Tim, is a pretty good indication you should have your block button taken away.  Volunteer Marek  23:46, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not sure I like this. Copping a block on the chin, and being willing to sit it out, is now evidence that you don't take it seriously and so the block should be extended? What a load of crap, especially since complaining about the block would doubtless be interpreted the same way. Reyk _YO! 23:58, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
• Come on y'all, I was asking DC to explain themselves. I was hoping they'd say something that would get them unblocked and they didn't---but to turn around and make their answer a rationale for increasing the block, well, this is AN so I should mind my words. It's wrong. You could cut their TPA, for instance, which would be silly enough, but their clarification of why they did what they did cannot be a reason for increasing. It seems obvious to me that a renewed violation would lead to a very, very long block, but come on--I asked him. If you want to be consistent then you should, as Cla68 suggests, block me for baiting. That wouldn't be the worst thing to happen (I got an essay I need to finish...), but it would sodomize my perfectly virginal block log. Ah yes. Also, see my comments at DC's talk page, please. Drmies (talk) 00:01, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

• The problematic part for me is: "It was possible for me to break the interaction ban because I am willing to sit out whatever block I was going to be given." If a user has no intent of respecting a ban because they are always willing to take whatever sanction is given for the breach of the ban, why should they be permitted to keep editing if it is clear they will just keep breaking the ban and hope they win on the ratcheting math of sanctions? MBisanz 00:04, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

• So you block them when they break the ban, not before. Reyk _YO! 00:06, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

• Once he's declared he has no intent of abiding by the ban and has broken the ban at least once, I don't see why an indef block until he agrees to abide by the ban is a bad idea. MBisanz 00:08, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

• He did NOT "declare he has no intent of abiding by the ban". Where you getting that from?  Volunteer Marek  00:20, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

• I'm getting it from "It was possible for me to break the interaction ban because I am willing to sit out whatever block I was going to be given. It's just that simple." and "I'm content to sit out blocks for things that I have done . . ." MBisanz 00:29, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

• Which is not at all the same as "declare he has no intent of abiding by the ban". Again, where did you get that from?  Volunteer Marek  00:43, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

• What Reyk said. Drmies (talk) 00:32, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

• (ec)Actually blocks are preventative not punitive. So if he states he intends to break his ban, the obligations is to block him before he does so in order to prevent the action. We don't block afterwards just to punish them. -DJSasso (talk) 00:09, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

• Blocks are rarely handed out before a person commits an infraction. Thus, blocks are corrective, as in used to correct the behavior of WP editors. That's why blocks of increasing duration are used. No additional corrective action was needed for this situation, per the comments above. Cla68 (talk) 00:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

• Drmies: I don't see how "If I choose to be, I'll still be here editing after ChrisO/L'ecrivant/Helatrobus/Prioryman/etc is banned", which was the first infraction during that thread, was in any way triggered or provoked by what you said or asked. It was just a gratuitous expression of hostility thrown in without any other reason at all. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:14, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

• But, it did look like an invitation to discuss the block didn't it? If he had said something about Prioryman in a more polite tone after Drmies' invitation, would you still have done what you did? Cla68 (talk) 00:21, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Even if it had been such an invitation, DC is intelligent enough to know that he is not allowed to discuss Prioryman even if invited (by a third party). Besides, there is a difference between an invitation to discuss his block and an invitation to discuss Prioryman – nothing in what he said about Prioryman was in any obvious way pertinent to whatever answer he meant to give to Drmies' questions. (And, as I said, the first infraction came before Drmies even asked him that question.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:25, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Future Perfect, you and DC have history. A couple of years ago, a previous sanction of yours against DC at AE was overturned on appeal. There are over 600 admins here. Would it not have been wiser to let someone else handle it? AndreasKolbe JN466 00:43, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Drmies is an admin, correct? So, that conversation, initiated by him, was between him and DC, right? Your fellow admin, Drmies, has asked you not to intervene in the conversation that he and DC were having, correct? So, you're basically telling Drmies to piss off? How about you admins get on the same page so us editors don't have to suffer the consequences of the inconsistent and misleading messages you send us? Or, based on your past history with DC, did you see an opportunity to get a hit in while he was down? Cla68 (talk) 00:46, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Cla68, yes, Drmies is an admin. Now please let Fut. Perf. respond to my remarks, and stop adding fuel to the fire. Sheesh. Do you think that setting one up against the other will make a difference? No, I didn't ask them to not intervene! Kolbe, that goes for you too: your comments are unproductive, and you should be the last one (since YRC is blocked) to comment here in the name of objectivity. Fut. Perf., I see what the remark was that made you lengthen the block, but consider that they spoke rashly, and weren't repeated afterward. Revert to the original block length--if DC continues to walk the same roads their next block will be much longer, and if they do, it doesn't matter whether they do so two weeks from now or four weeks from now. Drmies (talk) 01:08, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Drmies makes a convincing argument that the block should be shortened to the original duration. In addition, the lengthened block does nothing more to prevent further disruption compared to the original one. wctaiwan (talk) 03:25, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm perfectly happy to wait until Fut. Perf's beauty sleep is a perfect preterite. Nothing will have been missed in the meantime, given the length of the first block. Sweet dreams everyone: Peyton Manning won again tonight, so all is still well with the world. Drmies (talk) 03:35, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Sorry to disagree with you, Doc. The block was ridiculous to begin with, and given that your fellow admin seems to be getting away with his unfair extension, this place is beginning to look more and more like a contemporary version of the Third Reich. Draco 03:49, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
      • And... time. Is that a Godwin's Law record? Someone check the books! --Jayron32 03:57, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

        Checked; the ban discussion for Dr.Mukesh111 was faster, but only barely. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:12, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

      • Cry Havoc!. John lilburne (talk) 19:58, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
        • Hypocrisy, delusion, lies, pretence, deceit... Draco 16:47, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Everyone, Drmies is politely asking us to back off and let him handle it. Cla68 (talk) 04:47, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

• Comment If a user is topic/interaction/etc. banned from discussing topic X, but administrators are discussing topic X with the user while they are blocked, how can a user respond to messages other than to violate the ban itself? The only response that doesn't violate the ban would be to not reply at all. It seems to me like that is what is happening, and we probably shouldn't extend blocks for violating a topic/interaction/etc. ban based on discussing the original block for the same ban. To comment on Delicious carbuncle directly, his quotes are not convincing of someone who is going to continue on after the block, so I don't see the need to tack on another two weeks. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 11:52, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I disagree. Drmies was not discussing Prioryman with D.C. He was discussing D.C.'s decision to break his interaction ban. D.C. could very easily have responded to that without adding yet more accusations against the other party. And, as I'm sure I have pointed out before but people keep strangely overlooking, his first attack against Prioryman was not in response to any question of Drmies at all. That said, even if Drmies had asked a direct question regarding Prioryman, D.C. could easily have responded with "sorry, I can't comment on that without breaking the restriction again". It is a standard part of interaction bans that we expect people to exercise this amount of self-discipline; if we didn't, all interaction bans would be futile (any i-banned editor could get some friends to innocently "ask" them about their opponents on their talk page from time to time, giving them perfect opportunities to vent against them to their heart's content). Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:24, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
    • I wasn't saying that anyone should be able to respond to talk page messages from friends about it, that would violate the interaction ban and they should be blocked for that. I was saying rather, if they are blocked for an interaction ban and they are discussing the ban itself (whether they mention the user or not) it's unavoidable to be discussing the topic they were banned for and that itself violates the interaction ban: WP:IBAN - For example, if editor X is banned from interacting with editor Y, editor X is not permitted to: make reference to or comment on editor Y anywhere on Misplaced Pages, whether directly or indirectly. Emphasis mine. Like you said, I guess a refusal to comment is probably they best option, but.. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 12:50, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
• It says here: Users who are blocked are asked to use this as a chance to reflect, an opportunity to show their understanding and ability to act responsibly, and a period of time to let the matter pass and be learned from. Drmies was in a dialogue with DC consistent with that purpose when FPAS interjected themselves into the situation by a block with the comment And since you are so willing to sit out blocks, indicating to me the block was punitive for engaging in a good faith discussion with Drmies. As Drmies had already replied to a mention of Prioryman without comment about that violating the ban, FPas's action has the gestalt of wheel war (I know it's not a technical violation). Blocks are supposed to be a last resort, and there were several actions FPas could have taken -- suggested to Drmies the conversation was inappropriate, restricted talk page access, for two. The fact that he has a prior history with DC also makes his intervention suspect.
• It's been pointed out above, in my opinion correctly, that DCs intentional, tactical decision to violate the ban to get an ANI lick in is reason to consider an indef block. That's a reasonable option (indef block until DC agrees to abide by interaction ban). But it didn't need to happen whilst Drmies and DC were in dialog. It didn't need to come from FPas, and that's not what happened. What happened was FPas saw an opportunity to punish DC for breaking the speech code and took it. Technically correct? Yes, DC said the P-word. Remembering that we're not supposed to be a bureucracy, appropriate in the context of the location and tenor of the discussion? No. Nobody Ent 13:34, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Ent, I think that on the whole I agree with you, esp. the bureaucracy part. I see no harm in allowing a user like DC discussing a topic on their talk page when asked by an admin. Surely such leeway is allowed: "sorry I can't speak because I am not allowed to talk about this topic" is silly. I would like to hear DC say "I won't do it again anywhere" but that's probably too much to ask. I won't dispute the original block, but I continue to disagree with the extension, and hope that other admins will weigh in here. Drmies (talk) 14:19, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

"I won't dispute the original block, but I continue to disagree with the extension" pretty much sums it up perfectly for me. GiantSnowman 14:56, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

• Original Duration We should not punish an editor for breaking a topic ban when the offending edit is responsive to an administrator's question. The question should not be whether it was possible to respond without violating the iban, but whether the response in question was reasonably germane to the discussion the administrator initiated. Monty₈₄₅ 16:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Originally, the IBAN was set up to keep those two users apart - because they simply could not get on, and conversations between the two caused escalating drama. I think both of FPAS's blocks related to the IBAN (this extension, and his first block) were too over the top and more related to punishment than actually reducing drama (which is my totem for whether to block or not). Some extra context is needed too: part of the problem is that DC had identified Prioryman as a problem user to keep an eye on. In doing so he kept raising Prioryman's past behaviour and current issues in various venues. Prioryman and he fell out over that and from this their interactions escalated into abusing each other. I always told DC, in no uncertain terms, that he did not need to "watch" Prioryman, others were perfectly capable of doing that if it was warranted. In this case, though, he raises a couple of issues (ironically on his talk page, not in the AN/I thread - which was a ridiculous jibe) that seem to have been missed - most notably that in his unlock request r.e. his outing of another editor it appears he was already asking in March not to use their name. This is a very concerning issue which might need to be addressed (I don't know how, blocks not being punitive). What is also concerning is DC's stated acceptance of gaming the IBAN process (i.e. he will accept a block to say things about Prioryman). This, obviously, is not a good situation and I think that rather than a block escalation this time it merely be recorded, and made explicitly clear, that if this is his approach to the IBAN then the community approach to blocks will be to make them dramatically more expensive (I'd say next time: 3 month, 6 months, indef). --Errant 16:41, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

DC requested on their talk page that the following message be posted here. I have had no significant dealings with DC before and really don't know anything about this issue; I'm just doing this in response to a help-me template request. Zad68 17:34, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I hate to seem impatient, especially since I expect I will be staying blocked for the original term of two weeks, but I have no intention of sitting out a vindictive four week block made by an admin who seems to bear me ill will. Fut Perf extended a block because of a comment I made on my talk page in response to poking by Drmies. Fut Perf calls it "a gratuitous expression of hostility" but there is actually no hostility behind it. It is a confident prediction based on years of observing Misplaced Pages. Even if it were "hostile", blocked users are typically extended some leeway on their own talk pages. If Fut Perf's intention was to prevent me from invoking the name of the other party in the interaction ban, perhaps revoking talk page access would have been the correct course of action, but their block extension seems to be purely and gratuitously punitive. This is the second time they have blocked me under their flawed reading of the ban. The other block was soon undone. In both cases, Fut Perf blocked me and then claimed that they would be unable to discuss the block because they were going to bed. In this last case, I asked Fut Perf to raise a discussion of the block extension at WP:AN or WP:ANI. They replied that there was "no reason to". This is not the type of behaviour that we should expect from our admins. At this point, I'm just looking for the block extension to be reversed (I take it as a given that Fut Perf will refrain from using their tools in cases related to me). I have outlined why the original two week block may be overly harsh, but I understand that opinions may differ and, as I have said, I am prepared to sit it out. Anyone care to do the honours? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:39, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Interaction bans are fundamentally flawed solutions. If DC and PM choose to not interact with each other, then that's fine as that's their decision. If they interact in away that causes problems, then we should address these problems. This should work, because Misplaced Pages fundamentally is not a social medium. If I feel that editor X is not nice to me, then why would I bother? I'm not here to socialize with people, I'm here to contribute to articles and the Ref Desk. If editor X is saying things I don't like, I can simply ignore him. Count Iblis (talk) 20:23, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Second chance for User:Claritas?

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

User:Claritas has requested to be unblocked under the Standard offer (original request here), and has asked for it to be discussed here. At present, I personally take no position on the issue one way or the other, having not researched the situation leading up to the block; he does, however, appear to fulfil the requirements. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:52, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

• While of course wanting to AGF, given the user's history, can we please get a CU to confirm that they have not socked for 6 months? GiantSnowman 12:03, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
• (After some research) Support unblock. Unless a checkuser can show evidence to the contrary, there seems to have been no socking in the last six months, and Caritas has made assurances that there will be no future incidents. I'm willing to accept that, on the (self-evident) proviso that any future infractions will result in an indef-block and a very low chance of an unblock being considered. I'd also recommend (but not require) that Claritas spends a few months editing under the auspices of a mentor of his choice, who can help diffuse any emotive disputes that might threaten to flare up in the future. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:04, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
• I would recommend reviewing the following before responding:
  • Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive637#Deletion of Transformers articles
  • Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive224#Claritas/Anthem of Joy
  • Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive229#Unban proposal on User:Claritas
  • Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive234#Ban appeal from User:Claritas - BOZ (talk) 15:59, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
• CU isn't turning anything up. Bear in mind that this user was still in High School when he started to be a pain in the situpon, and is now a university student, it is well within the bounds of possibility that he has grown up at last. Support the unblock with the mentorship idea though. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:12, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Does he edit any other wiki projects? If so, that might provide extra evidence of improved behaviour. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:23, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Elen - one of the concepts in the Standard Offer is to show work elsewhere (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:52, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

He has been active on Commons and Wikiversity. Judging by his behavior there, no, he has not grown up at last or in the least. In this Commons discussion (June 2012) he's a) lying about his past socking on Misplaced Pages and b) refusing another editor the courtesy that he is asking of us here (in fact he even states " I can be hypocritical if I want to" once he is called out on lying about his socks). In this Wikiversity thread (April 2012) he's being, well, basically a total jerk to someone simply because he can (" You weren't obliged to put this on Misplaced Pages" - yes, but the person would've failed a class if they hadn't, so it wasn't much of a "choice" as he well knows). Overall there's a pattern of "Please be nice to me, but I get to be abusive others if I want to" kind of mentality there (as he freely admits, it's hypocrisy).

I'm not going to formally oppose this because I do believe people deserve second chances (or is this his third?), but I feel very very sorry for whoever ends up as his mentor. Volunteer Marek  18:25, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

No longer. The work somewhere else stuff was removed 7 months ago. Nobody Ent 17:29, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

As an concession to the other projects who felt (not inaccurately) that "foisting" our problem editors on them as a matter of course was not conductive to anything positive. That said, there's no reason we can't take the existence of good work on another project as a good sign – it's just not cool to require it at the other projects' detriment.

(That said, the diff Volunteer Marek picked up are most certainly not good signs IMO). — Coren  20:11, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support unban. Misplaced Pages needs editors. Nobody Ent 17:29, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support unban - as long as Claritas is willing to be mentored for a few months to get him back up to scratch. GiantSnowman 17:37, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support- because Claritas has not socked in the last six months and has given credible assurances that he won't in future. Reyk _YO! 21:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

This is a discussion about Claritas, so the edit summarized by the edit comment, "Sshh! What's that? Is it the sound of my mocking laughter?" is reasonably hatted.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:46, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose I still do consider behaviour and actions on other Wikimedia projects as important. I am all in favour of second chances, but the recent lack of maturity found in the smattering of edits elsewhere (as shown by Volunter Marek) show me that Claritas is not quite ready to be a part of any such community. WP:OFFER isn't just about going away for awhile, it's about proving you understand why you were blocked/banned in the first place, and showing us the behaviours will not be repeated (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:37, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Just to say, if I were to be mentored, I can see myself working well with Worm That Turned. I regret being rude over at Commons and Wikiversity, but I have quality contributions to both projects, and never came under sanctions while I worked on them. I will make a serious effort not to repeat that sort of flippant behaviour over here.--Claritas § 20:11, 29 October 2012 (UTC)Copied from user:Claritas's talkpage
• weak oppose I'm a big fan of second chances, but A) socking like that is a pretty bright line and B) the problems identified by VM on other Wikimedia sites isn't encouraging. If allowed back, I'd certainly want a mentor. Worm would be fine if willing. I would also ideally like a 6 month ban from XfDs given past problems. Hobit (talk) 12:48, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Hobit, happy to have an indefinite self or community imposed ban on XfD participation. I'm here to write. Claritas § 14:00, 30 October 2012 (UTC) copied from User:Claritas's talkpage
• Support unban not giving users a chance to return after being blocked/banned gives them no incentive not to sock. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 14:00, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

So banning is just a block with a different name?  Unscintillating (talk) 02:46, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose unban - the editor's behavior on other projects undermines the credibility of his promise to alter his behavior here. He does not appear to have grown up at all. JoeSperrazza (talk) 14:12, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support unban per Nathan Johnson and GiantSnowman.--v/r - TP 14:23, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support unban I believe in second chances and Claritas seem to have done some good work earlier. Looking at the Commons thread linked to upthread I was actually more concerned by Volunteer Marek´s behaviour than Claritas´s as I thought Marek unnessecarily brought up previous sock issue. Claritas also answers well over at his talk page. w/r Iselilja (talk) 20:36, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support second chance. Editor has hopefully matured in the intervening time. KillerChihuahua 20:41, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
• Worth a try. Easy enough to gauge his maturity in action - easier than it is here in discussion. Easy enough to get rid again if necessary. Peridon (talk) 14:04, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support Having looked into the situation, I'm happy this user appears to have grown up a bit in the past two years. It's not difficult to re-block if they start playing up. Unfortunately, whilst I would be happy to mentor this user under different circumstances, I'm not in a position to take on more users at the moment. I would recommend a mentor, though I would believe that passive mentoring should be sufficient, watching their talk page and discussing issues with Claritas. Worm(talk) 14:27, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support Unban - Productive content creator. I offered to mentor earlier in an attempt to deter banning the editor in the first place. I'm still willing to do that if deemed essential, but I can't imagine that it is necessary. Carrite (talk) 16:38, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose As I understand what's said, this person is just 15 or so. We have no deadline and so there will be plenty of time for them to contribute when they are an adult. Also, their user page indicates that they wanted Jack Merridew as a mentor and that's not a good sign. Warden (talk) 17:43, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support – as Peridon says, it's easy enough to undo later if it turns out to be a bad idea. 28bytes (talk) 20:08, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support unban if user agrees to mentoring. AutomaticStrikeout 20:23, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Possible School Project

At least, I think its a school project. If its not a school project, then something else very weird is going on. A hoard of SPAs have popped up to edit Interactive design, which was a redirect until yesterday. The results appear to be well intentioned, which is why I suspect a school project of some sort, but they are a bit rough around the edges. What is the WP page/project that tends to coordinate these things? I think that some hand-holding may be needed here, and wanted to know where to go to get some assistance. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:SUP (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:42, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I've reported this on the talk page there, to get someone knowledgeable in these things to try to figure out exactly what is going on here, and I suspect to try to establish a dialog with the teacher if it is a class project. In the mean time, at least one other WP regular has jumped into the article to give some clean-up assistance. (Thanks, TP!) - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:06, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The one IP editor (69.41.96.11/nat-tbd.scad.edu), is an educational institution IP address registered to Savannah College of Art and Design. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:04, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Just a note for on forums for the future: the WP ambassador program is trying to promote the Education noticeboard as a central point for dealing with student editing issues. The Interior (Talk) 04:11, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello there! you are right this is a group project, we couldn't find a definition for Interactive Design so we proceeded to create a new entry. hopefully that doesn't violate any Misplaced Pages regulations, it's still a work in progress. --Interactivista (talk) 01:31, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Interactivista, could you please make sure everyone on the project reads the following?

Actually, it's just the opposite. The only "problem" we have is that we here at Misplaced Pages want to help you and to be part of your project. Here are my suggestions:

• Have each member of the project go to their user page and post a little about themselves. No personal info needed, just a little bit about the school and the project.
• You have to talk about the project somewhere, so why not do it on the article talk page?

Like I said, we love school projects, we want to help you and we want to work with you. That's hard to do when all we see are your edits and none of you engages in conversation with us. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:39, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012 scheduled to close

The 2012 Arbitration Committee Election RFC, which will govern the conduct of the election, is eligible to begin closing any time on or after November 1, or about 9 hours from now. We could use a number of uninvolved closers to assess consensus, both for individual issues, and finally for the whole RFC. One closer need not close all the issues in the RFC. The earliest proposal has nominations starting on November 11th, so please consider closing the issues that will be germane to the schedule and nominations as promptly as possible. Monty₈₄₅ 15:43, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

All parts have been closed and summarized.--v/r - TP 19:57, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Second chance for dannyboy1209

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

Should dannyboy1209 be given another chance to change his ways on wikipedia? 92.0.113.96 (talk) 21:22, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

• How about you ask for user talk page access back, per the instructions on your talk page? Submit a proper unblock request. Using IP socks to do this is not going to help. Reyk _YO! 21:30, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Commons bug, not applicable for enwp

Original section title: Please cease all deletions at this time

{{adminhelp}}

A bug has been discovered that is causing the histories of deleted files to disappear. At this time it is unknown what is causing the bug, what other projects the bug effects, or if the data can be recovered at a later point. Because of this, I advise that we cease all deletions for any reason (except for things that need to be Oversighted), and place a Sitenotice up warning admins to stop deleting pages at this time. I believe that the magnitude of possible damage warrants this level of response. The adminneeded tag is for the sitenotice. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:11, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Is this file namespace only? --Rschen7754 05:17, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Sven, can you explain to me why missing file history is a problem worthy of a site notice and ceasing to delete files that violate US copyright law? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 05:22, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and put in the notice, but any admin can feel free to revert if the problem is resolved or it is determined to not affect enwp. --Rschen7754 05:25, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'd more object that you've told any admin not to ever delete anything ever until told otherwise when it affects the file namespace, and that you've done so in a way that pings every single user ;p. I've emailed the internal engineering list essentially telling them we need this fixed doublequickfast. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 05:30, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Did my edit test, and this is file namespace only. --Rschen7754 05:29, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I was just informed by Engineering that this code is not live on enwiki. Sven, please be sure to verify things before making apocalyptic notices :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 05:35, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

All my tests work; just uploaded an image, deleted, restored, and everything's fine. It's only on Commons. Removed sitenotice. --Rschen7754 05:36, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Being that I'm not an admin on this project, I would have no way of testing it. Being that I can't code for shit, I would have no way of seeing if WP had the same issue or not. I was very clear above that I wasn't 100% on it being on English Misplaced Pages, when I said "At this time it is unknown what is causing the bug, what other projects the bug effects, or if the data can be recovered at a later point." I think that the response here was perfect: deletions were stopped until the situation could be tested, at which point the messenger was shot for time-wasting. Sven Manguard Wha? 12:52, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely. This is Misplaced Pages, where no good deed goes unpunished and anything you say will be used against you, sooner or later. Since Dmca#Title_II:_Online_Copyright_Infringement_Liability_Limitation_Act provides WMF really good protection, concerns about copyright law for the short amount of time really are overwrought. Of course, had the bug been real and Sven had not said anything we could sit around this morning in 20/20 hindsight discussing his failings for not doing so. In any event, Sven didn't post the site notice, Rschen7754 did, we can throw them under the bus instead if a sacrificial victim is required. Sven, don't worry about it. Nobody Ent 13:35, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Nobody Ent. I think Ironholds and I have a good enough working relationship that neither of us really came away hard done by this conversation. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:05, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Iluvrihanna24: Standard Offer Request

Per WP:UTRS Request #4500, 82.24.227.215 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) has requested the standard offer. I do not know anything about this case, so I am deferring it to AN. It does appear that six months have passed since the block was instated. The following is his request, which he agreed to be posted here:

Why do you believe you should be unblocked?

I believe I should be unblocked because I have already learnt my lesson. I have matured a lot over the many months I have been blocked and just want to start new and forget all of my old accounts. I have been observing editors whilst I have been blocked and know exactly what is accepted and what is not anymore. Although my block is another 6 months away, I would really liked to be unblocked now as I know I have learnt my lesson now and am just frustrated that I cannot correct certain pages. I know you may just think that I am being impatient but I have been waiting many many months and believe I have served my punishment time. Thanks.

If you are unblocked, what articles do you intend to edit?

Mainly music articles but any articles with mistakes such as grammar and non-up-to-date information.

Is there anything else you would like us to consider when reviewing your block?

Please unblock me, like I said I have matured extremely over my block period and really want another chance to prove myself. I will not constantly edit articles like before but just want to be able to edit some articles here and there. Thanks.

Reply message:

I would like to request a Standard offer if I may. I'm not sure where to find an administrator but I have read the rules clearly and as I said before I would like to move forward with my contributions to Misplaced Pages in a positive way for the future. I have waited almost 15 months for my lengthy block to expire and I know I have learnt my lesson and just want to move forward if I am given the chance. Thank you for your time.

King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:07, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

So basically this means that Iluvrihanna24 is requesting an unblock? Or am I misunderstanding something? Nyttend (talk) 00:12, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I have updated the header to make that more clear. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:21, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

• First, this is clearly not a WP:CLEANSTART. They are either a) unblocked and used that account, b) unblock and the account can go through rename, or c) she is unblocked and permitted to create a new account, with proper permanent linkage to the old account. Second, have we verified they have not socked/evaded in the months since the block. Third, I see no real explanation of how they will avoid the behaviour that led to the block - what will really be different? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:03, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

• Perhaps their talk page access should be restored so they can reply? Nobody Ent 18:49, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

• I have modified their block to allow them to post to this thread. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:26, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

The last cycle with Iluvrihanna24 was actually as PhoenixJHudson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who was unblocked with some fairly strict editing restrictions. He proved quickly unable to abide by them and was reblocked quickly (see http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:PhoenixJHudson&oldid=486670745). I'd support an unblock under the same restrictions as before. Iluvrihanna24's real problem is the addition of massive piles of gushing details and edit warring when people try to trim it back. His restriction was specifically tailored to that, in that he was forbidden to restore material that he had added and another editor had removed. In fairness to him, he wound up with major problems dealing with Calvin999, who has since been dealt a few blocks for edit warring. If we unblock Iluvrihanna24 with that restriction again, we will need to be vigilant to ensure that other Rihanna fans don't abuse him.

I am a bit disheartened that his unblock request doesn't acknowledge the existence of PhoenixJHudson, but it was 6 months and 3 weeks since that account edited.—Kww(talk) 05:08, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

• I'll conditionally support an unblock pending a checkuser to check for sock activity in the last 6 months. Assuming no socks, I'd support unblock with no restrictions. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 05:19, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Given his history of edit warring and sock puppeting, I think unblocking him with no restrictions would be foolhardy.—Kww(talk) 07:10, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello. I have been allowed to give my opinion here now. I am glad that people are seeing my point about the user Calvin999 as that was a very big factor in my comments made before towards him as he reverted every edit I made which became extremely annoying. I did forget about my different identity's block periods but as kww stated the minimum it has been is almost 7 months which I believe is a very long time to have thought about my mistakes. As I have previously stated, if I was unblocked, I am not going to edit large chunks of information, all I would like to be able to do is correct certain parts of information that have bad grammar or have non-up-to-date information if I could. Thanks for your time. 82.24.227.215 (talk) 12:49, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I went to check an edit on my watchlist, Girolamo Masini

and discovered that a date had been changed from "December 11" to "11 December". or something. I undid it, wrote a note to User talk:Toadally relaxt and discovered that he (she? I doubt it) had been warned about not doing this in 2008 and then again a few times, and it appears to me that he has made a bunch of these edits and someone might want to look at the situation. Thanks Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 13:27, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Given that the subject was Italian, wouldn't it make more sense to use the same method Italy uses? I don't see this as something that requires any sort of action, given that it was done in good-faith, and given the specific article I'm inclined to agree with the other editor, though it should be discussed on the talk page. - SudoGhost 13:44, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Well I reverted a bunch of these changes, then looked at the history of one and discovered that it was written European style to begin with. So perhaps I just jumped into the middle of some cultural war and made it worse. Oh well. as I recall I wrote the article about the Italian gent and am inclined to keep it the way it was written. Carptrash (talk) 13:59, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I think all dates on the English Misplaced Pages should follow the same format, period. This has nothing to do with WP:ENGVAR (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:05, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

And what (whose?) format would you suggest? I think that the "first-come-first-served" method, as inconsistent is it is, is the way to go. Support diversity and all that sort of thing. Carptrash (talk) 14:13, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Getting everyone to agree on one formatting would be nice, but one variation of English anything preferred over another will lead to a cultural fistfight. Americans will either be forced to eat yoghurt or the British would be forced to fill their tanks with gasoline, in their minds. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 14:15, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Bwilkins - would you suggest American or British? ENGVAR works well. Carptrash - the 'first come first served' argument is ridiculous, and completely defeats the point of Misplaced Pages. ~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by GiantSnowman (talk • contribs) 14:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

to the unsigned comment, which point of wikipedia might that be, or is there only one? Carptrash (talk) 14:20, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Like I said - this has nothing to do with WP:ENGVAR ... a date format is not a spelling, it's a customary format. (We all know that yoghurt is spelled yoghurt :-) ). That's why I said dates are not in my opinion an ENGVAR situation. Besides, as Italy is not a primarily English-speaking country, ENGVAR wouldn't apply anyway ;-) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:22, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, you are the one who brought up ENGVAR , just to say that it does not apply. An interesting approach. I have always been of the belief (on wikipedia and most everywhere else) that the person who does the work gets to make these decisions. That is what I mean by the "first-come-first-served" method. I'll stand by that. Carptrash (talk) 14:30, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, WP:CONSENSUS rules :-) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:51, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

If only Misplaced Pages had a policy or guideline that covered this... WP:DATEFORMAT. Seriously guys. Disagree with it if you want, but over there. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 03:41, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Niemti, community ban proposal

Nobody Ent 15:59, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

• Some may recall this incident: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive238#User:HanzoHattori, now editing as Niemti: discussion regarding un-banning. User:HanzoHattori, banned and indef-blocked in 2008 for chronic incivility and an inability to work with others, was contentiously allowed to return under a new name: User:Niemti. User:MuZemike warned: If he gets unbanned/unblocked, I'm sure we will be discussing numerous ANI incidents, culminating with another ban proposal, within a year. So here it is, 3-4 months later. Niemti has displayed the same incivility and failure to assume good faith and more: particularly unashamed WP:OWN violations, as well competency issues. These have continued (last couple of days: , , ) despite a recent discussion in which multiple users voiced concerns (and to which he responded with little but taunts). An RfC/U containing the appropriate evidence has been certified and listed here: Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Niemti. Niemti has swiftly stated that he will not respond: He called it tl;dr, and this is "the first and last time" he edited the RfC (and not to provide an endorsed response). I don't want to unilaterally withdraw the RfC (if this is possible), not least because I don't know where to put the evidence otherwise, but it is abundantly clear that it is not going to achieve anything.
• I thus propose a community ban of Niemti, per the fact he already has been banned for the same issues, and per the fact the supports of his return contained caveats such as Look, if he comes back and takes advantage, I'll be the first to kick him in the ribs - hell, I'll be happy to make the block myself. (User:Ironholds). Failing that, editing restrictions: at a minimum the restrictions described in the RfC, but preferably a topic ban from video game characters, and possibly also GAN. Evidence for the multitude of policy violations and the complete lack of respect for others, endorsed by other users, can be found on the RfC page (please do read it). The only counterpoint Niemti has provided is his vast edit history. Aside from the fact his editing lacks competency (the GAs he boasts of were either cleaned up by their reviewers or received rubber-stamped non-reviews), no amount of edits can excuse these violations, nor driving other users to edit nowhere near him. bridies (talk) 14:34, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

My experience of Niemti has been pretty much limited to Another World, although his name seems rather familiar, so maybe elsewhere too, but I have to say I see nothing wrong with his work there. Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

• Ban proposals are made at WP:AN and not here at ANI. Won't work here.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:57, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

• They're made in both places and multiple bans have been enacted on ANI. Misplaced Pages:Editing_restrictions#Placed_by_the_Wikipedia_community. If it bothers an editor they're welcome to move it to WP:AN Nobody Ent 15:31, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Haha, oh wow. Like I'm going to respond to a barrage of false accusations (like the one that I responded) and things taken out of context. Hilariously, some people seem to be annoyed because I'm doing too many Good Articles about video games (yes, you heard it right - only this week GAs of my were Another World (video game), Call of Cthulhu: Dark Corners of the Earth and Wolfenstein 3D, with about two dozen more coming through right now). --Niemti (talk) 15:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

• Endorse as non-admin - per rationale given by User:Bridies. While some of this user's GANs have passed, many have resulted in stalemates due to Niemti not being willing to make requested changes such as not updating sources with reliable replacements. I don't like to throw out the baby with the bath water, but it seems like there's more water here than baby. --Teancum (talk) 15:46, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Not "some", but most. Plus 3 out of 4 A-class assessments (the remaining 1 being on hold, and you know it). --Niemti (talk) 15:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support: site ban, topic ban, and lesser restrictions. After reviewing the multitude of blocks, investigations, AN/ANI/ANEW reports, and warnings, I also concluded that Niemti's recent conduct reiterates a long-term pattern of belligerence, condescension, and incivility towards others. Mephistophelian (contact) 15:49, 2 November 2012 (UTC).

Hey, should I tell you about my first accounts? You would dig up on me something from 2004 and 2005 too. So relevant. --Niemti (talk) 16:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)--~~

• Support based on history, behavior documented at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Niemti, and refusal to participate in RFC/U. Nobody Ent 16:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

And I already told you how it was laregly just false accusations and things taken out of context. Which it was. And cherry-picked from tens of thousands of edits in thousands of articles. Instead of believing this, maybe you should check yourself (that's 500 last week, mostly finishing touches on the recent GAs and preparations for the new ones, in particular The King of Fighters XIII, Mortal Kombat (2011 video game) and Shank (video game)). You can check then the earlier 500 too (that would be probably something like the previous week), and so on. --Niemti (talk) 16:05, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

• Ironic Support considering the WP:ABF that I was subjected to last week regarding this exact same editor. The battle mentality, "not me" attitude and "I don't have to answer to the community" statements pretty much say it all. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:19, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support - poor past conduct and does not seem willing to deal with any issues which have been raised again. GiantSnowman 16:20, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

"Issues", ha. Especially this "Oh no, he's making too many GAs!" thing (it was in Video Games Portal or something). Like, what? Jesus Christ, lol, WHAT. (Want a hint? If you don't want to review them, for whatever reason, then just don't do it. Like I don't want to review, and guess what - I don't review.) I'm basically being attacked for this very reason. I'm making to many good articles (literally, Good Articles). Funny thing is I'm not even interested in drama. All my talk pages (including my own talk), portals, etc. activity is less than 10% of my edits (so much for supposed "battle mentality"). More than 9 out of all 10 of my edits is tirelessly editing content, every day. This week alone I achieved 3 GAs. I listed them above. They're actually good articles, I think. But instead of congratulations or barnstars or whatever, or just respect, I get all this shit. --Niemti (talk) 16:38, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Producing good content is not a get-out-of-jail free card, to be waves about whenever your incivility and attitude (as you are again demonstrating here) becomes disruptive. GiantSnowman 16:51, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

What I'm "demonstrating here"? Like I'm getting all this, yes, shit ("ironic support"), while nobody is listening to me, again coming with stuff from years ago, or just believing (onca again) false accusations and things taken out of context? And the "funny" thing is - "producing good content" was really the thing against me. Seriously, it was. Supposedly, I was doing too many of these GAs (Misplaced Pages:Good article nominations#Video games are these waiting currently, and I'm continously working on them if they're not simply finished already, by me, as you can check in their histories). It all started with this, like last week or something. I was like "what? no of course I'm going to continue, and I'm not going to review, don't review too if you don't want to do it" (it's not like I'm forcing anyone to do it). Then, some people from this portal decided to spend a lot of time and energy to dig up dirt on me (even if it's laughable or false, like this thing that I commented on, no matter, it was just piled it out in this huge thread). I didn't even know they want to actually ban me. That's just incredible and I can't believe it. --Niemti (talk) 17:07, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support ban (non-admin) - Agree with the concerns by Bridies the nominator, Bwilkins, Nobody Ent and Teancum. The sum total of his battleground mentality and incivility have been staggering and has unfortunately exhausted our patience. With that said, enough is enough. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support Civility is equally as important as quality mainspace edits, and while the latter is good, it can't overshadow battleground mentality tied with the former. --MASEM (t) 17:04, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Civility is equally as important as quality mainspace edits no it freakin' ain't, and that attitude is exactly where this project went wrong. Encyclopedia. Not Facebook. Volunteer Marek  01:39, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Masem is a long term, good faith editor, and I'm pretty certain he doesn't treat or view Misplaced Pages like social media. He means that it's virtually impossible to work on any sort of collaborative aspect of the encyclopedia with him. Let me ask you this: Have you tried working with Niemti before? Have you tried to have a discussion about policy with him before? Have you tried to take an article in a direction even minutely different than Niemti's vision for it? If/hen you have, perhaps you'll understand what we're is getting at. Sergecross73 msg me 02:21, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

And let me ask YOU: did you read what Chaheel Riens wrote up here? No, I didn't ask him to come here and say this. I didn't ask ANYONE to come in defense. Morever: I didn't even tell about this to anyone at all. I sure could, but I didn't, my choice. That's unlike you, the clique, who thought it's fine to gang up on me in an organized manner (guess it's this "collaborative aspect" at work). And hey, just why do you have (collaboratively) had to quickly resort to personal attacks and telling lies about me? Like about me supposedly breaking almost "every" ("every") Misplaced Pages policy. Well, that would indeed make me an absolutely horrible editor. One small problem though - it's not true. But it worked, people bought this, so congratulations. You can be proud of yourselves. I guess. --Niemti (talk) 14:39, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

What "battleground" are you talking? Where is it, exactly? (I don't even hang on you portal.) If somebody told me I should have taken this thing seriosuly, I would. "Request for comment" didn't sound to me like a serious matter (I never heard about such a thing before), especially since I was only told about it as a "part of procedure". --Niemti (talk) 17:12, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I called this whole situation "hilarious" at first, but now it's just Kafka-esque. I'm being basically lunched by the Video Games Portal crew for being too ambitious for their liking. For working too much (like already more than half of Sjones23's edits above in just 7 months, even as his are counted from over 7 years) and also, as strange as it may sound, for my liking of the articles on fictional characters (besides all the other articles), which that many of them despise for some irrational reasons. The rest is just an excuse, and seems that I myself gave them excuse with my misunderstanding of "request for comment" thing. --Niemti (talk) 17:29, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok, here's the deal: A user RFC is an attempt to come up with a voluntary solution to perceived issues with a particular user's contributions. It is considered the final stage in voluntary dispute resolution, if it fails to achieve a voluntary agreement the next step is usually a filing at ArbCom or a request like this one. As a user who was previously banned and was extended a massive amount of good faith when the community allowed you back in even though you were actively evading your ban at the very moment discussion of lifting it was taking lace I would expect you to realize that your behavior afterward would basically need to be above reproach and that any concerns brought to your attention would be responded to in a civilized manner. Of course by letting you get back in through the back door like that the community may have sent you the message that we don't actually take such things seriously and you can flaunt and ignore community standards of user behavior safe in the knowledge that there will always be someone there to make excuses for you, so there is blame to spread around on this one. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:25, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think I actually "flaunt and ignore community standards of user behavior". I'm not saying I'm perfect, but this is totally all blown out of proportions. Even couting the accusations towards me that are simply absurd (in my opinion), factually incorrect, or taken out of context, it's all a very, very small part of my activity, and what exactly was supposedly the most serious thing? Like, me calling names against anyone? Maybe I threatened someone in any way? Did I falsely accuse someone? Any incidents of vandalism? I don't know, what was that? --Niemti (talk) 17:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

See the RFC/U - there are examples where you have a combative stance on article changes that act like article ownership, and resistance to take suggestions from others. Those are just as bad as vandalism and false accusations towards the constructive group efforts to improve the work. --MASEM (t) 17:47, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

No. No. "Article ownership" (supposed), on exactly how many of the thousands of articles edited by me, and where in nothing but good faith (like maybe some POV stuff or something)? Where exactly it it written "resistance to take suggestions from others" is now a such a so-serious, bannable offense? (If so I'm going to suggest something to you now and you better do it.) --Niemti (talk) 17:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

See WP:CONSENSUS and WP:OWN and YOUR MIRROR (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:00, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

"YOUR MIRROR"? Seriously? Ha, yee YOUR MOM. (Look, I'm being "battleground" now, oh no. I should have taken such a polite "suggestions from others", who want to ban me, without complaining.) That was an excellent list of my supposed most serious offenses, too. --Niemti (talk) 18:11, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Every editor, probably at one time or another, acting in a way counter to WP:OWN with regards to an article they have spent a lot of time editing and preparing. Alone or isolated, that's not a problem. But when it happens repeatedly and after the user's been cautioned against such actions when others are trying to improve said articles in good faith, then that starts becoming specifically disruptive which is the primary point here. --MASEM (t) 17:57, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

There is no solid consensus on this, but the community seems to be heading away from the notion that making good edits makes up for chronic incivility or combativeness. To make an imperfect analogy, let's say a mechanic was sometimes putting water in his customer's fuel tanks so that they would need to come back and spend some more money. If he only did it 10% of the time and used proper fuel the other 90% of the time does that make it ok? Beeblebrox (talk) 18:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

And to make a more perfect analogy, I say I'm not displaying "chronic incivility or combativeness". I even actually generally avoid portals, Administrators' whatever, Articles for whatever, etc. It's also because I'm just not really interested in discussing things. --Niemti (talk) 18:18, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

And that's one of your problems! Misplaced Pages is a collaborative project, this means you have to discuss things, even if you'd rather not!--86.156.212.221 (talk) 19:16, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

No, I edit articles, I don't discuss articles for deletions and stuff. There is no requirements for doing any of this. That's not "one of my problems". It's not a problem at all. (Also, I was here to argue with people, about anything, I'd do this instead of editing articles. And guess what.) --Niemti (talk) 12:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I must say that was an excellent list of those most serious things (all zero of them), and especially the ones that I didn't try some middle ground solution or just gave up or even eventually agree with these all-bidding "suggestions from others" (as every users need to readily agree with "suggestions from others" or else it's a ban time). OK, gotta go. I guess I'm going to leave it with the previous comment by Masem (complete with "just as bad as vandalism and false accusations" and hey, he was serious), which really shows the absurdity of this. --Niemti (talk) 18:11, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Refusing to work with the community on one's behavior, even if one thinks they are 100% in the right, is usually also taken as a sign of battleground mentality that is harmful to the project. --MASEM (t) 18:15, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

What? I got a "request for comment". So I even actually commented. It didn't say anything about how it's "explain all this or else". It basically didn't say anything at all. (And I really need to go.) --Niemti (talk) 18:18, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Based on the above, yes ... yes you do need to. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:21, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

So I can. I just didnąt understand it was serious, or what was it at all. But thatąs when I'm back, because seriously I need to go. --Niemti (talk) 18:27, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

It's serious in the sense that not complying is an implicit sign of not wanting to cooperate. If you showed interest in cooperating on the RFC to understand how to improve this behavior, I would not be surprised to see this suggestion to ban you called off. --MASEM (t) 18:33, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Which really sounds like a blackmail, but anyway. So what do what do you exactly except me to do supposedly? --Niemti (talk) 08:23, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: It's really not necessary for us normal editors to label our positions as "non-admin" -- I'm sure the mop wielder who closes this will intrinsically know to give our positions greater weight without the hint. Nobody Ent 22:19, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

LOL. When I look at topics on admin noticeboards, all of the non-admin comments are different colors and blink. The colors vary based on the season.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:52, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. No doubts, Niemti has certain (mis)communication problems. For example, he recently reverted a few my edits withot talking. So what? Is it such a big deal? I think Niemti must take a serious wikibreak. But his comments look to me mostly like sarcasm, rather than serious personal offences. I did not see User:AnddoX (who Miemti allegedly offended) complaining about it anywhere. Does anyone here feel himself so much personally offended that he can not forgive fellow editor? My very best wishes (talk) 23:00, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

He already had a "serious Wikibreak": 4 years, after being banned for the same stuff. He has barely made it 4 months before intractably putting himself in the same position. His recent ongoing incivility ranges from I told you to stop fucking up my articles to if you do want actually contribute, go and try to make Ryu's article a GA Which I did it with Ayane nearly 300 edits from this account alone, mostly in the previous month, and now you want to mess with it. As for "So what?" This is the second time in barely as many months I've had to waste huge, RL-damaging amounts of my time and concentration putting together evidence for an RfC/ANI, just to keep the content areas which I enjoy functioning normally (the other instance was User: Jagged 85; I see Niemti has used the exact same defence of "cherry-picking") as he did. Personally I'm strongly tempted to finally edit Misplaced Pages no further after this: how many more editors who break every other policy except WP:CIVIL (Jagged), or damn near every policy (Niemti) but add big green numbers (though not quality, nor even readable content), need I/we indulge for years, through multiple ban/RfCs/ANIs before finally having to go through a time-devouring, laborious due process to (maybe) have them banned. I've only managed about 20 successful GAs and an FA, many of them collaborative, over the last few years. I'm sure I wouldn't be missed, next to Niemti. bridies (talk) 00:07, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, I had no problems while editing aricles about Chechen warlords together with him. It looks like editing videogames is more dangerous. A topic ban from editing videogames? A temporarily block to chill out? My very best wishes (talk) 00:46, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Seriously video games is a subject that is chill subject ESPECIALLY compared to dealing with nationalist editors on politically charged subjects. And what Bridies says is not only lies, it's all his personal dislike, after I told him how I don't like him (literally, I told him "I don't like working with you, and I don't even you, anymore"). As I said. He actually said this: "I've had to waste huge, RL-damaging amounts of my time and concentration putting together evidence for an RfC/ANI, just to keep the content areas which I enjoy functioning normally." What? While there other editors can say, quote (for example, very recent), After the second look, I see the article much improved. I have no further comments, so I pass the article. Good job! after I did this much improvement indeed, and these changed don't even include my previous edits to this article, tons of them ("wasting my time", too - maybe he should have "waste huge, RL-damaging amounts of my time and concentration" on editing some articles, which almost all I do). That's quite a difference, no? --Niemti (talk) 10:28, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Until I read this thread, I was unfamiliar with Niemti. I have looked at the diffs provided by the OP. I have looked at the RFC. I have read the extended discussion here with Niemti. I have not reviewed Niemti's history. What I have looked at seems to be consistent. An editor who creates good content and who relies on that work to thumb their nose at anyone who interferes with their work. The arrogance, the sarcasm, the mockery, the condescension. Despite what Niemti might think, they're not indispensable. See My Fair Lady song, "Without You".--Bbb23 (talk) 23:12, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support - While he does contribute a lot, he also wastes a lot of the community's time with the issues he's constantly bringing up. He is almost always condescending and rude to virtually anyone who interacts with him. There's just no reason for him to go out of his way to be so difficult. I've told him several times before that his bad attitude would overshadow any good he does here, and yet he continues on without hesitation, so he's clearly aware of what he's doing, and has no intention of stopping. If he intends to bless the world with his video game knowledge, (He likes to make claims that he's irreplaceable.) I think he needs to start up his own solo blog or something, because he clearly cannot handle working on a collaborative project. Sergecross73 msg me 00:32, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - honestly, this appears to be a bunch of "oh noes, how dare he disagree with me!?!" kind of complaining. If there are issues of ownership they appear to be with the OTHER parties. Over at the RfC I see the statement "Most (though not all) of these are relatively minor, but should be considered as part of the broader problems with Niemti's editing style." - when someone first admits that the given diffs are "relatively minor" but then tries to string up the subject anyway based on "part of a broader problem" that sets off the bullshit detectors screaming. Yes, there is some arrogance and (horror of horrors!) sarcasm, but it's not like any of these are that hard to deal with ... if you're willing to do your part in the AGF equation. Volunteer Marek  01:44, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not "some arrogance". It's deluded, megalomaniacal hubris. And when I said they were "relatively minor", I meant in relation to the gratuitous ownership-claiming and incompetency. As for "assuming good faith" and "dealing with it", as Sergecross said: I'd love to see you review half a dozen of "his" video game GANs, and make dozens upon dozens of copy edits to "his" articles, as I did, and then see what your "bullshit detector" says. How would you defend such reverts as: "I told you to stop fucking up my articles, didn't I?", "thanks, I prefer it this way", "nope" and then "really, no", "I told you to stop doing that", " if you do want actually contribute, go and try to make Ryu's article a GA Which I did it with Ayane nearly 300 edits from this account alone, mostly in the previous month, and now you want to mess with it", "It was all quite well thought by me, see? Now, if you have something to CONTRIBUTE to the article..." and so on? My own "bullshit detector" is "screaming" right now. bridies (talk) 04:59, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

"deluded, megalomaniacal hubris" - go call me some more names, come on. And you forgot to "inform" it was in a discussion with a dude who thought that what I said to him was "such a blasphemy" (which I guess was not "deluded"?). And you also "forgot" to show examples of my supposed "chronic incivility or combativeness". Like, I'm right now watching 1,281 pages. It's mostly articles. That was one example (same guy, two pages, of one I let it go (Ryu's, precisely) and on another on which I discussed on its talk page, by presenting a number of arguments). It's on "deluded, megalomaniacal hubris". Oh, and uh-oh, reviewing my GAs, somehow all the other have no problems. Only you. Only this week, 3 reviewers somehow didn't had such horrible ass pains like you apparently did: , , (and those included no prior edit wars in these articles, of course). What you do now, is only your personal dislike, after I told that "I don't like you anymore". My own "bullshit detector" is "screaming" right now. - great, mine too. --Niemti (talk) 08:23, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Also: or damn near every policy (Niemti) - he's just lying. Lying, lying, lying, lying. I see any lie about me can now go unchecked, and without consequences. People will believe it, even! I'm being, groundlessly, demonized in such an absurd way that I'm just short of words now. As I said it several times, it's incredible, and getting more every new moment as it goes. --Niemti (talk) 08:56, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support - I agree with Sergecross73's argument and that of threadstarter. When you fail to even collaborate with other editors just because you're "not interested in them," you're already a liability to the project. Sergecross made a point about Niemti's condescending behavior - it's already evident in how he responds here! When you take a Wikibreak for as long as Niemti has but you still exhibit the same kind of BS behavior, it goes to show you haven't used the time to reevaluate your worth to the project. Get him out of here. --Eaglestorm (talk) 01:50, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

What? What kind of quote was this "not interested in them"? "BS behavior" - LIKE WHAT? Huh? Of the last say 1,000 of my edits, go and show my, like, 10 (supposedly) worst offenses (out of 100 offesnses I guess, like in "an imperfect analogy" above with "10% water"). Clearly those people (VG Portal clique, which I'm not part of) convinced you I'm supposedly cruising Misplaced Pages (which is supposedly "battleground" for me, the word "battleground" repating so many times) looking for a fight or something, so it should be easy. That's and , 1,000 sample edits since October 23. What you will ACTUALLY see, is mostly working on creating Good Articles. A lot. As of this thread, I have to deal with people who, groundlessly, say my GOOD ARTICLE WORK is "as bad as vandalism" and apparently people agree with this absurd, who call me "deluded, megalomaniacal hubris", what the FUCK is this? Go, call it "such a blasphemy" too, it's just this level of, yes, "BS behavior" right now. Just incredible --Niemti (talk) 08:23, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support ban an unacceptable battlefield mentality is very much on display in this thread - and especially the post immediately above. Niemti, if you make any further posts like that you're going to be blocked regardless of the outcome of this discussion to impose a ban. Nick-D (talk) 09:07, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

And how will you call the BLATANT LIES being told about me by bridges? Yes, lies. Yes, he's lying. Should I repeat it? And also he's outright INSULTING me. It's, somehow, accepted. No one says a word. The term "BULLSHIT" is circling around, but it's not about his lies and insults. There are ABSURD accusations towards me, and yet they're accepted, while no one is listening to me. Except when it finally gets a rise from me, then yeah, now people take a note. How is this right? --Niemti (talk) 10:03, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

It's my "battlefield mentality" to ask them to show the SUPPOSED worst examples of my oh-so bad behavior (even if cherry-picked out of tens of thousands of edits in thousands of articles in only 7 months, including zero instances of vandalism, including always trying to mantain absolutely NPOV conduct (as much as it's possible), including making several Good Articles in such a short time, and getting numerous others to B-Class too, and creating several (that's not even including re-creating, that was many more), and uploading lots of pictures, and so on) and yet it's not "battlefield mentality" to answer with "YOUR MIRROR" (yes, in caps) to this. No one said a word about it, of course. It was not "battlefield mentality", it was peacefield mentality from Bwilkins (who said he's holding a grudge against me, but I have no idea why and what was that, I just don't know this person). What's with this thread? I told it once, I say again: it's a pure Kafka-esque stuff. --Niemti (talk) 10:15, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Whoa there ... who said I was holding a grudge? I was given shit by my fellow editors for holding you to the same standards (as you're a longtime editor) as I hold others. Nothing at all about a grudge (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:23, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

"Ironic Support considering the WP:ABF that I was subjected to last week regarding this exact same editor." - that's how I interpreted this cryptic message. I seriously have no idea who you are. --Niemti (talk) 10:34, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

That's pretty funny. I especially like your response there where you degrade the individual to below-human status because 8 of their 9 edits were possibly vandalism. You really just cemented my Support for this ban by making me go back and actually see your response. Your dismissiveness of simple, human-relations based suggestions is appalling. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:57, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

They were not "possibly" vandalism. It was - "8 of their 9 edits were vandalism", factually stated, nothing "possibly" about them. And someone even confronted you on this. And the other one was basically proudly saying what this VANDALISM ONLY ACCOUNT was doing - he posted a definition of trolling. And your reasoning here is "appalling". You're still, continously defending the vandal(!!!!!), you want to ban me for reporting vandal! The Trial - Misplaced Pages edition. It's just getting ever more crazy. --Niemti (talk) 11:12, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for proving me right - and I think you now finally understand my comment. Someone "calling" me on it was WP:ABF - you're justifying the fact that you refused to do them the courtesy of advising them that you had reported them to this very board, because you considered them sub-human. I'm not defending any vandal - I'm defending due process and human courtesy. I think you just put the final nail in. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:50, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

No. Also, you lie, too. And there are tons of "due process and human courtesy" towards me here. But that was my last post here. --Niemti (talk) 12:24, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Here, I like to show how absurd this thing is. Bridies (WHO IS LYING) really, really wants to ban me, and it's because of my and his (volunteer, it was 100% his own initiative) work on some of my GA nominations. Some he passed, some he failed, anyway he holds a stupid grudge against me ever since then. But now I want to show you something. That's also addressing the claims of it's virtually impossible to work on any sort of collaborative aspect of the encyclopedia with him and he clearly cannot handle working on a collaborative project from Sargecross73:

In this thread, I already showed you the 3 GA that passed this week. Without complaints. One of them even commented in this very thread. Let me quote it: My experience of Niemti has been pretty much limited to Another World, although his name seems rather familiar, so maybe elsewhere too, but I have to say I see nothing wrong with his work there. Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

And yes, those were the articles that passed just week. Those are GAs that are currently under review (not counting those that are awaiting a review), in chronological order:

• and here's there's my work on to adress the issues (about new 40 edits)

• - I'm not sure it's going to pass (despite "Continue the good work" comment from the reviewer), but one thing for sure - the article is much better now (my work on it in meantime, about 85 new edits) which is an important positive impact, even if it's not going to end with a GA.

• - I'm not doing much, but also just no issues were raised at all, yet.

• - awaiting a second reviewer, but the first one sees nothing wrong with the article.

So, is it really SUCH a problem with me? Or, maybe, rather it's with Bridiesm, like with his LIES about me here. (Somewhere up there, he's actually compaing how his efforts to ban me are wasting his precious, precious time.) Why do you people accept this so easily? Maybe now, for once, ANYONE will listen to my side of the story. --Niemti (talk) 11:05, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose ban. No worse than Malleus from what I see above. And the editors who want him banned for incivility using expressions like "deluded, megalomaniacal hubris" strikes me as a bad case of WP:KETTLE. Tijfo098 (talk) 11:34, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Incivility is merely one of the reasons he should be banned. Though do feel free to put together evidence that I'm anywhere near as bad as Niemti (you might get a feel for how much of a pain it is). The comparison to Malleus is useless: not only is Niemti infinitely worse than him, in terms of content creation, Niemti is no Malleus. bridies (talk) 13:27, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

All you people, take note, please. Bwilkins "reasoning" is I was was being "degrading" towards the "alleged" vandal (I wasn't even really, I just called the things by name while reporting this - it was vandalism-only account, it was trolling), but he thinks the vandal was not "degrading", not towards AIDS victims and homosexuals or against Han Chinese people. And so he only banned the vandal for only 1 week, and still defends him (no, really he does), but now he wants to ban me, for my reporting of the vandal - "ironically", he says. It's an excellent example of what's going in this thread. But people just automatically accept and "agree" with this (quote: Agree with the concerns by Bridies the nominator, Bwilkins) even as they don't even know what is it about (even I didn't know what "the concerns by Bwilkins" were about, and turned out it was this). And when I'm more and more dismayed at this situation, nobody is actually listening to me, only - "yes, this, it's his battelfield mentality again, the barrage of absurd accusations, insults and outright lies to get him banned got a rise in him, it's totally unacceptable!". It's like a parody, really. --Niemti (talk) 12:04, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support. This thread alone demonstrates perfectly why a community ban is in order. --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:05, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Jesus Christ. I see I'm just wasting my breath. Absolutely nothing I say to explain and show the absurdity of this will matter at all. Well, I tried. --Niemti (talk) 12:06, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

And so I'm not going to even continue to watch this ongoing theater of the absurd. Feel to continue lynching me, post as many insults, lies and inane accusations as you want, it's not like I'm even allowed to counter any this at all. --Niemti (talk) 12:18, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Suffering fools gladly should not be a requirement to edit. Niemti is a good editor, which sadly has become the strongest criterion for a ban proposal. Joefromrandb (talk) 12:35, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

What fools? bridies (talk) 13:27, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Niemti contributes very well to wiki. That he's not the friendliest guy in the world shouldn't be a reason to ban him. This isn't a playground. If niemti is uncivil a lower sanction should be sufficient. But I don't see how he broke the rules. This looks more like a bunch of guys who "don't like him". Machinarium (talk) 12:57, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Niemti, with his insults and mine-mine-mine attitude, treats Misplaced Pages exactly like a "playground". bridies (talk) 13:39, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Get over it. Machinarium (talk) 13:47, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough then. I'll expend my time and energy in some other pursuit. 14:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - per Marek, the argument basically runs "this guy still annoys us, let's ban him again". Niemti produces good content and a bit of hassle. I see no evidence that he's a net negative to the project. Just ignore the childish outbursts and let him get on with writing those GAs. Claritas § 12:59, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
• Comment I'd love to see someone actually refute the evidence while opposing. bridies (talk) 13:27, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

And I'd "love" to see a real evidence of your claims. Here I see a "complete lack of respect", to quote you but for me (or maybe things like calling me "deluded, megalomaniacal" was an expression of respect and I just misunderstood it as an ugly personal attack), including by accusing me of breaking, and here goes a quote, "damn near every policy". Which was blatantly untrue, and with this every so emphasized that it wasn't some kind of a slip of the tongue, you didn't mean it was "some" or "several", not even "most" maybe (not that it would be any more true), you meant what you said, you meant "damn near every", that is every single one with some odd exceptions only (a shock tactic, which then worked, sadly). Or maybe you can prove it by actually showing how I break "damn near every" them (and there's quite a lot of them). No, you can't. You can't because it was only a slanderous lie. Because you so very deliberately lied about me, right here, and without even a good reason, if acually any reason (I can't see it). So, how do you feel exposed, now? You liar. --Niemti (talk) 14:13, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support Frankly, I do feel he is rather overly hostile from the examples I've seen. --ProtoDrake (talk) 14:21, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose ban I see no evidence of the kind of incivility that would merit a community ban. One of the certifiers of the RfC/U actually complained that Niemti was nominating too many articles for GA status, which would make sense if they were blatantly not appropriate GA candidates, but that is not the case.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 14:29, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Article deletion request

Lynn Parsons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Dawn French (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Not sure if I should be posting this here, so apologies, but I've just picked up this message in the last few minutes, in which Parsons expresses concern about the accuracy of her article. Apparently she and French plan to undertake some editing of their pages to correct errors. I slipped up with Parsons, believing her anonymous account to be someone engaging in vandalism (see this reply), though I believe it is her. Anyway, she has requested her page's deletion. I'm waiting for her to confirm this, but as she's not overly notable I'm inclined to think I should go ahead with the request. Paul MacDermott (talk) 20:25, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd agree. I think this is one of those cases where we can honor a subject's request and not feel like we're missing something that definitely should be in a complete encyclopedia. Send to AfD.--v/r - TP 20:34, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

ok, give me a few minutes to set everything up. Paul MacDermott (talk) 20:36, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Discussion now open at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Lynn Parsons. Paul MacDermott (talk) 20:52, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Community ban proposal: Pé de Chinelo

Pé de Chinelo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been using sockpuppets and IPs from Brazil to continually disrupt Misplaced Pages since being indef blocked in 2010 by adding false information into various film articles. This user's name has popped up on WT:FILM numerous times as well as WP:SPI. More information for the sockpuppet investigations can be found at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Pé de Chinelo/Archive and more evidence can be found at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Film/Vandalism_by_201.19.*.*. As of now, Pe de Chinelo has created 121 suspected sockpuppets (most of them IPs) and 14 confirmed sock puppets. Much of the work done by Pe de Chinelo was cleaned up by regular project members MarnetteD (talk · contribs), Lambiam (talk · contribs), Hydrox (talk · contribs) and TheOldJacobite (talk · contribs), as well as Sjones23 (talk · contribs) (that's me, by the way).

He has also continually attacked Andrzejbanas (talk · contribs) (, , , ). If those attacks are not called harassment, what else would it be called?

More recent disruption by Pé de Chinelo occurred at Sucker Punch (film) (, , , , ). His disruption has caused serious trouble to Misplaced Pages. Therefore, I would like to propose an indefinite community ban of Pé de Chinelo to reduce the disruption by this user.

• Support as proposer. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:18, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support - oh that just blows. One-twenty-one suspected socks and 14 confirmed socks, not to mention bashing other editors? Pe de Chinelo, get lost. --Eaglestorm (talk) 02:39, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support The IP socks might be much higher as there was a time when they weren't getting tagged. This person has edited disruptively for years and this ban is overdue. MarnetteD | Talk 03:45, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
• Waste of time. He's de facto banned, as his account is indefinitely blocked and no sane admin would unblock him. All editors are fully empowered to revert every single edit he makes. The sole difference between a de facto ban and a de jure ban is that no admin could unblock him in the presence of a de jure ban, and there's no risk of that happening.—Kww(talk) 05:19, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support always smartest to dot your i's and cross your t's (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:27, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
• Waste of time per Kww and WP:BURO. Nobody Ent 12:15, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

RevDel and page move vandalism

Yo. I've only recently started getting to grips with RevDel, and I have a question - how does it work with page move revisions? Say that a vandal moved "User:Example" to "User:", and that move then got reverted; resulting in two revision history entries featuring that offensive statement, which should be hidden. The comparison of RevDel with Oversight mentions that using RevDel "the page should be moved to an innocuous title and then the original page name suppressed in the move log", but it's not clear to me whether it's saying that that's a function of RevDel that's only available to Oversighters. Certainly, I'm only seeing the options to delete revision text, edit summary and editor's username/IP, none of which might contain the material in need of suppression. — Hex (❝?!❞) 12:18, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Administrative backlog