Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:33, 16 September 2013

• 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 34 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 32 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 101 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 71 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 70 days ago on 8 November 2024), RFC expired weeks ago. GoodDay (talk) 21:33, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Israel#RfC

(Initiated 55 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 9 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 16 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 10 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 114 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 80 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 71 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 20 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

Off-wiki canvassing

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

What is the correct procedure if a discussion is being swayed by off-wiki means? At Talk:Paris#Changing_the_photo_at_the_start_of_article, the !vote after being slightly against changing the infobox photo has suddenly gained another 5 !votes for it, explained by Talk:Paris#.27Parachute.27_revisionists..--Gilderien Chat|What I've done 16:09, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I've poked in that page the odd time, and it might be helpful if someone with a lot of patience were to help mediate the overall dispute. There definitely are factions pushing for control of various aspects of the article, which certainly is unfair to Dr. Blofeld's efforts to bring it to GA status. Resolute 23:22, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

No need for patience, really - This complaint isn't about the article content itself, but the WP:MEAT tactic used to 'force' certain POV's; it doesn't matter whose POV's they are. There is no call to discuss article content at all. THEPROMENADER 08:35, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

. All non editors, most with new accounts all turn up within a few hours to try to sway an argument. Isn't that sort of organized canvassing of non editors to try to sway an argument on wikipedia considered disruptive and blockable anyway? Not that those "votes" have an ounce of credibility anyway, but it is very concerning that Der Statistiker has no respect for other editors and seems intent on pushing his opinions whatever the cost. And yes, I've heard little but whining and sniping about my edits to the article which passed it as a GA. At one point they were proposing to revert back to the April version, which if you compare it to now it sums up what I've had to deal with.. I think if Der Statistiker continues to cause disruption and making derogatory remarks then a topic ban from Paris related articles might be the best thing.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:53, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

 Note: Following comment moved from separate section below. — Scott • talk 15:24, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

A long and heated discussion over which picture to use to represent Paris has taken place. Some want to show famous Parisian sights, others want to show skyscrapers outside the city. Both arguments have merits. Unfortunately the discussion has turned ugly. Minato ku suggested that those who don't share his opinion want to show a city where "everybody is white" . Completely beside the point, and a thinly disguised attempt at calling other users racists. Then, when the consensus seemed to go against his preferences for skyscrapers, the same user decided to go on a WP:MEAT-campaign. At the website skyscrapercity.com (hardly a neutral place), the user repeatedly encouraged members to go to English Misplaced Pages to comment and vote in favor of Minato Ku's preferred picture , , . He even went on to instruct them how they should modify their profiles to appear more credible , .
His meatpuppetry did have the desired effects, a number of new users turned up, their only edits consisted of being in favor of Minato Ku's desired photo change , , , .Jeppiz (talk) 19:53, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Mentioned above, Misplaced Pages:An#Off-wiki_canvassing. Might want to merge the sections so that all the discussion is in the same place... Ansh666 02:26, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Done. — Scott • talk 15:25, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Why was this archived? (Perhaps the 'done' in the message above triggered the bot) THEPROMENADER 04:37, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

The bot is set to archive 2 days after the last comment. The only thing that changes that is a fake date stamp to manually delay archiving. Monty₈₄₅ 04:40, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Or {{subst:DNAU}}. Be sure to remove it once the thread is closed so it can be archived. I have added it above. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 05:16, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Much thanks - will do. THEPROMENADER 08:26, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

The DNAU template doesn't seem to keep this from being archived - perhaps I implemented it wrongly? THEPROMENADER 16:55, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

A 'two-cents' second thought about this episode: Minato ku has been making (a few) edits to Paris-based articles since 2007, so should have known better than to rouse the off-wiki campaign as he did, but one question is bothering me: How is it that his first edit since a year and a half is a vote for the 'La Défense' image on the Paris talk page? It seems evident that someone involved in that debate before the vote 'put out the call' to draw that contributor here, so I (for one) would feel badly if he alone took the blame if he was not alone in organizing the drive. If this is the case, it would be kind (to Minato ku and all contributors involved in this) if that 'someone' came forward. THEPROMENADER 11:53, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• I'd put good money on it being one particular editor, who opposes any Dr. Blofield-initiated edit with an apparent disregard for whether it's an improvement or not, but there we go. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:20, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

It is not because I am not active that I don't read Misplaced Pages. The Paris article was quite calm until a few months ago, I had no reason to participate here if nothing happened. In the few previous months, I was too busy and I didn't go in Misplaced Pages. When I decided to go again in Misplaced Pages page, I have seen big changes and debates, I had to put my opinion.

ThePromenader seems to think that my interventions is only based on la Défense (I don't know what he has against La Défense). This is not true, my interventions are mostly based on a bad impression that I notice in many media and here. I have the impression that everything is done reduce to the minimum facts that are not according to the homogeneous, touristy, old and quaint stereotypes of Paris. I was even accused of calling people 'racist' when I have given this bad feeling about what is happening here.

I hope I am wrong but many of the talks seem to confirm this fear rather than the opposite.

I only put my two cents in the talk section, I didn't edit the article, I didn't bring people here for a vote that did not not even exist at this time. I have rebuked those who came and insulted some editors because of me (I am sorry for that).

I find some reactions to be quite exaggerated here, as if it was a problem or suspicious thing to have people who don't agree with them. Minato ku (talk) 00:10, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Apologies, your first intervention (after a year and a half) was two months earlier than any vote. Just goes to show that off-wiki maniplation can give everything a 'suspect' angle it shouldn't have. THEPROMENADER 06:52, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

PS: personally I don't care about 'sanctions' (I didn't begin this thread - but it doesn't look as though anything is going to happen anyways), I just don't want to see anything of the sort happening again. THEPROMENADER 17:39, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

This has been here since two three weeks now, can someone close this issue please? THEPROMENADER 05:53, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Virginia Society for Human Life

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

Perhaps an admin or two could keep an eye on this AFD. An IP user has already been blocked for harassment over, shall we say, the way he chose to express his dislike of the fact that the article was up for deletion, and the AFD is now full of SPAs that may have come from off-wiki; the latest is that, apparently sore over being labeled an SPA on the basis of having, well, a single purpose, one of the sockpuppets/meatpuppets has taken to labeling all the editors he disagrees with as having been canvassed, without any attempt to provide evidence of same. Admin watchfulness may be helpful. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:54, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Interestingly, per Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion#IP editing prohibited, both the article Virginia Society for Human Life and its talkpage should be semi-protected through November of 2014. I'm going to go ahead and do that. The AfD is a mess, but I'm going to leave that for another admin to clean up. Discounting the obvious influx of single-purpose !voters and the sniping, there's probably still some useable input there. MastCell  18:05, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I would say that all four IP addresses !voting Keep are actually the same editor (certainly the three of them that are on the same mobile network), and clearly not a new one judging by their knowledge of WP:ALPHABETSOUP and certain other editors. The last three entries should probably be struck as duplicates. Black Kite (talk) 18:17, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Competenence/Point making/un-civil behavior from editor with concerning reactions

• Barney the barney barney (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I happened to catch this diff on my watchlist and found it peculiar that WP:POINT would be cited in a revert on the request for undeletion page. After I started digging in I discovered a persistent methodology in their responses when met with adversity, with resepect to dealing with some of the more sensitive portions of the project, and in the way that their behavior is disrupting the project as a whole. I do see in their talk page they have had permissions revoked and dis-invitations from specific sections of the project. At this point I am unsure what the appropriate preventative action would be, though I can see anything from an admin strongly taking them in hand up to a WP:CIR block. Hasteur (talk) 19:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if a WP:CIR block can also be handed out to someone who cannot spell "competence"? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:29, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I have encountered Barney a few times before, and earlier today I removed his auto-patrolled status due to his continued mis-use of page curation tools (i.e. repeatedly incorrectly tagging articles for CSD, repeatedly adding BLPPROD tags to articles about dead people etc.). His talk page responses are sarcastic, and he shows no respect for other editors or Misplaced Pages's rules. POINTy !votes at AFDs today and the past few weeks, sarcastic posts on the talk pages of new editors are among issues I have spotted recently, and his reaction to the AN notification was more of the same. Basically, I agree than Barney lacks the correct attitude or competency to be a useful Misplaced Pages editor and I would support an indefinite block. GiantSnowman 19:27, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

This sentence is rather telling for POINTY because he opens with, "I am told that I am not competent enough to judge new article are promotional or not, and that promotion is now allowed." If its indicative of anything, it shows their understanding is flawed, but without going too deep into the matter, maybe a language barrier exists? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:33, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

This doesn't look like a long term issue, but kind of a blowup today in reaction to GS's criticism and removal of the auto-patrolled right. I don't really think his comment in the AFD a few weeks ago (GS's 2nd link) is pointy; are there any other examples of what you consider pointy behavior from before today? Saying he "lacks competence" because he's pissed off, and saying he "can't be a useful editor" when he has been one for a year and a half, seems unfair. Looking through his contribs, it looks like he might be a little too aggressive in page curation; he certainly wouldn't be the only one. He hasn't edited in 45 minutes, perhaps rather than propose indefinite CIR blocks we could, I don't know, talk to him like he's an angry human being or something first? --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:56, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the AFD comment, it was definitely POINTy. Basically I removed his BLPPROD (twice!) as it was not eligible, and took the article to AFD. He then made that comment where he !voted keep and delete at the same time. Further background - he was at WP:ANEW four days ago, and had to be prompted to actually engage by Bbb23. I'm not sure how far you want me to go back, but a comment at AFD 2 months ago that there is "Keep - no valid for deletion given" even though there clearly was a lengthy rationale by an experienced editor show he either hasn't read it, or he has read it and ignored it - neither is good. Dismissing this behavior as a "bad day" will simply not suffice. GiantSnowman 20:07, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I understand that it is frustrating, but this doesn't seem to rise to the level of CIR on a short term analysis. People make mistakes, have bad days and do things they will later regret - including replying to things without reading. If it was all foreign language, gibberish or something that is incomprehensible over a longer period of time - it may be an option, but I think this is premature. BtBB has not even responded here and I'd like at least their input before deciding on any action. Think of it as more ROPE, and remember that POINTy is a lot easier than CIR to block for. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:34, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

(e/c) So, one AFD vote that might be borderline pointy (I still don't think so, but I can see how you reasonably do), an AFD keep vote with no real rationale (but on an article that was kept) from two months ago, and not responding to an ANEW thread (but one that was closed with no action).... i don't see anything close to a WP:CIR issue, nor anything really out of the ordinary before today's blowup. Not a perfect editor, but you and I aren't perfect either, let's not try to make that a criterion for others to keep editing here. If we get rid of imperfect but better than average page curators, the quality of page curation still goes down. I would imagine that, like most people, BTBB is relatively open to constructive criticism, not so open to jibes. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:35, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

My comment is directed only at the ANEW issue. Sometimes when evaluating an EW report, I tell an editor that they "must" respond at ANEW or risk being blocked. Sometimes I just tell them I've issued a warning at ANEW, and leaving the message makes sure they're aware of it. In Barney's case, my message was unusual (don't think I've ever left one before like it). I found the whole report mystifying and was curious as to Barney's thinking. I was mildly suprised when he didn't respond to the message, but it was no big deal, and, as you say, there was no violation and it was closed for that reason.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:23, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

From Gate to Wire was flagged for speedy deletion by Barney. Snowman didn't agree that it fell under WP:CSD#A7 and reverted Barney's flag.

Now whether it technically falls under that clause or not, From Gate to Wire looks like fluff to me.

Snowman's reprimand seems unduly harsh and negative, with a threat to block. He could have easily said, "I get why you marked the article, but that wasn't technically the right tag" (assuming that it wasn't the right tag, which is not entirely clear here) or "The article looks okay to me because..." or something.

Barney responds to Snowman's harshness/negativity with sarcasm. Snowman responds by revoking Barney's autoconfirm rights!. That seems excessive and clearly retaliatory against Barney for him not buying Snowman's original claim (whether the claim is true or not).

Barney proceeds to make a WP:POINT.

It would be a shame to lose Barney over this one issue, which, while the POINT stuff is clearly his bad, it was nonetheless instigated by Snowman's negativity and later escalated by it. It looks to me like Snowman took the "respect my authoritah" kind of approach, whereas dealing with others constructively as peers may have prevented the problem in the first place, or at least not inflamed it.

Just speaking for myself, I met Barney during my dealings with Rupert Sheldrake fans, and it would be a shame to lose another eye on the article (which he fixed again just two days ago). Vzaak (talk) 20:46, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Wow, I just noticed Snowman is advocating an indefinite block. This is way over the top and continues pattern of escalation I mentioned above. Vzaak (talk) 20:51, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• Comment- I agree that Snowman's approach was excessively heavy-handed and officious. Removing Barney's autoconfirm rights was unnecessary, and advocating for an indef block is so over the top it doesn't even pass the laugh test. Both strike me as vindictive. Barney's passive-aggressive sarcasm doesn't help much, but if you go out of your way to annoy people on their own talk page you should not react with shocked outrage when they snap back. And, for the record, that article did qualify for CSD. Reyk _YO! 21:59, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

User:RHaworth has flagged From Gate to Wire under the same clause, CSD#A7. Vzaak (talk) 23:50, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• They have a disagreement over notability guidelines (a non-admin style interaction): and then following on from that Snowman removed his autoconfirmed: . Doesn't the negative interaction (which is not related to operating in an admin capacity) constitute being WP:INVOLVED considering his obviously strong feelings? (This isn't rhetorical, I would like to hear opinions) IRWolfie- (talk) 23:56, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• Comment If Barney wasn't utilizing the tools he was entrusted with (observed over time, not a single day) then removing the rights could be warranted. But I don't think being disrespectful and sarcastic warrant an indefinite block. I also don't think it's fair to dig through someone's edits over months and selectively pick out the bad ones and claim they are typical. No editor could pass that kind of scrutiny. I agree that we've all had bad edits and had bad days. To warrant a long-term ban, a pattern of misconduct or poor behavior has to be demonstrated. At least, that's how I've understood the process to work. Liz 00:12, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
• I've redirected it to Ottawa, Illinois. I would have sent it to the newspaper, but it doesn't have an article. I'm pretty sure that an article on a column in a paper that doesn't have an article can't stand alone. Black Kite (talk) 00:24, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

• Though FWIW, I am against any type of block . Let it go. Black Kite (talk) 00:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support WP:BOOMERANG block for WP:CIR. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:29, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

• Now I've slept on it and had another review of the situation, I'll agree I was perhaps overly harsh yesterday with my threat to block, though I stand by my removal of his auto-confirmed rights. I think he is competent, but he just doesn't like the way we operate. He also has a lack of understanding of notability, such as telling a newbie GNG doesn't mater. This PROD removal summary, combined with his !vote at the subsequent AFD, shows he clearly hasn't read the notability guideline he is citing. Furthermore his attitude stinks - I've seen good content work from him, but that's no excuse for continued incivility. GiantSnowman 08:33, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

• He also needs to stop biting

He's been given some straight talking to by Floq. For now that will suffice. If he ignores said advice, he can't say he wasn't warned. In any case, more admins are keeping an eye on him now, so I think you can rest easy. Ritchie333 09:33, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

The WP:BOOMERANG is strong with this comment. The decision to revoke auto-confirmation was in direct response to Barney's sarcasm. He thought the A7 argument was bogus, and others here agree. He mirrored the incivility he was shown in the harsh warning and block threat. Because he didn't show proper "respect for authoritah", he was taught a lesson with the auto-confirm revocation.

Barney had a right to be aggrieved, but not to keep making WP:POINTs thereafter. All but one of the above links re behavior occurred after this incident -- sarcastic remarks made after the aggravation you spurred.

User:RHaworth also marked the page with A7. When is he going to be issued a stern warning with block threat?

I hope I'm not burning bridges with this comment, I just think that the authoritarian dynamic is very strong here, and someone needs to say it. Treat others as peers and they will respond in kind. Insist on the correctness of what is clearly an opinion through warnings and threats by exercising "authoritah", and expect a wide range of reactions, including self-immolation. Vzaak (talk) 10:22, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

If somebody is going to template RHaworth with something akin to {{uw-disruptive4}} then I want front row seats and a large tub of popcorn..... Ritchie333 10:54, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Your lack of good faith distubs me. The auto-confirmed right was removed due to mis-use despite previous warnings. I told him he was able to re-apply for it, and I am more than happy for another admin to re-instate it if they feel my removal of it was incorrect. I've offered my help to Barney previously and got no response; I also issued comments and warnings about page curation tools, again to no avail, and I've already said I accept my threat to block was OTT. GiantSnowman 11:24, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

This isn't related to good faith; I'm just looking at what happened. Barney responded sarcastically to your warning plus block threat. Twenty minutes later you say, "Do you know what's not helpful? Your attitude." Five minutes after that comes the revocation of autoconfirm. Among the incivilities here I would rank that retaliatory abuse of authority among the highest, greater than sarcastic remarks and sarcastic POINT proving. Abuse of power is a very strong trigger, and it's no surprise that real-life riots are often related to it (e.g. LA 1992). It has the ability to remove inhibitions because "fuck it, the system is broken". Barney is still at fault for his reaction, but you are not able to point that out in a non-boomerangy manner.

If only the block threat was OTT, then shouldn't User:RHaworth at least deserve a polite warning saying that he got it wrong? Where's the warning? Vzaak (talk) 12:15, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I actually removed the status - now restored - after seeing this, but please continue to accuse me of abusing power/retaliation all you want. GiantSnowman 18:04, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Facepalm ..... This came in while I was asleep last night. I regularly patrol the queue of proposed CSDs to see if there are any I can commute down to PROD, AfD, tagged or even improve with sources. (The White Mandingos being a personal favourite - A7 to DYK.) I saw From Gate to Wire and thought "hang on, that's print media ... Ottawa Times? National Canadian newspaper?" I dug around a bit and discovered that, no, it was actually an insignificant column in an insignificant web-only paper of no importance. I endorsed the A7 and left it alone.

That's my opinion of the content. Regarding the conduct - it's an A7, no it isn't, yes it is, no it isn't is blatant edit warring, and as an admin, Snowman, you should know full well that it was. Barney's conduct (eg: , ) is not helpful, but edit-warring and discussions that can be paraphrased as "go ahead punk, make my day" is not the way to resolve it. Now let's all calm down, take a deep breath, and improve an article. Ritchie333 08:41, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

• Perhaps my review of the events is different from others. From what I see, GS saw a single, somewhat problematic issue. They approached the editor (good idea). Having arrived at the editor's talkpage, they noticed a few other similar issues and started digging deeper (good idea). While GS was digging, the editor decided to be extremely sarcastic/caustic (bad idea). GS noted a larger number of issues, and appears to have made the decision to remove a userright before the smartassed comments (good idea). The editor became more caustic (bad idea). It escalated from there (bad idea). Based on the ratio of correct page patrols to very much incorrect page patrols, the user-right modification appears correct in face as a temporary solution. The editor reallllly should have taken this in a better way (good idea), but escalated it through their sarcasm (bad idea). GS should not have responded to the sarcasm. In the end, with a little "training" the editor will eventually get that user-right back (good idea), UNLESS they continue to resort to sarcasm/caustic/POINTY behaviours (bad idea). GS was not WP:INVOLVED because it was not the sarcasm that made him remove the user-right, it was the history of edits. ES&L 11:46, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I must be missing something terminally obvious. GiantSnowman has removed Barney's autopatrolled status here. Unless there's strong evidence of Barney creating articles himself that get CSDed, and since you don't need autopatrolled to actually do patrolling (I did NPP and AfC work for literally years before getting autopatrolled), then I can't see removing that right as directly preventing disruption - therefore it has to be a punishment. Or have I got this all wrong? Ritchie333 12:11, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Preventative, to stop him disruptively tagging articles (as I have already shown) and making comments like this. GiantSnowman 12:18, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it does, though, does it? From my understanding, reviewing pages requires autoconfirmed, which is checked automatically, while you removed autopatrolled. I'm just a bit worried you've got your terms mixed up. Indeed, the autopatrolled documentation explicitly states "It does nothing at all when the user is looking at or patrolling pages." So, by my understanding, you haven't technically prevented him from reviewing. Can another admin clarify this? Ritchie333 13:01, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh dear, maybe I have - in which case please come a-trouting for me. GiantSnowman 13:09, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, after a review, autopatrolled has nothing to do with page curation. Since there have been no problems with new pages he's created, I've restored that flag. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:56, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

To all the Editors calling for boomerang (i.e. @Demiurge1000 and Vzaak: Doesn't Boomearang assume that the editor bringing the complaint is at fault? I did not interact with EITHER of these editors prior, and only noticed the interaction and exceedingly poor communication from BtBB and brought it here to see if there was perhaps another admin that was willing to step in as a "good cop" to try and diffuse the situation. Glad to know that the reading skills of the average AN reader are first line only. (And yes that last sentence is snark) Hasteur (talk) 12:38, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Um, what? It should be perfectly obvious that I wasn't referring to you. To construe WP:BOOMERANG so narrowly as to apply only to the person that happens to start an incident report doesn't make sense. Whether someone happens to launch an attack from an existing incident report or a new one is not relevant. It wouldn't make sense to grant everyone immunity from WP:BOOMERANG except the person that happened to open the incident. Vzaak (talk) 00:03, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Er...on AN and ANI, "WP:BOOMERANG" is, in every other time I've seen it used, used to refer only to when an OP's complaint, well, boomerangs back at them. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:01, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Vzaak, who are you hoping to BOOMERANG then, me? GiantSnowman 08:49, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Filter 188 is not working

Do not know who's able to fix this but Filter 188 (accessible from UAA) is not working since Sept 4. The other filters from UAA are working fine. -- Alexf 18:41, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Special:AbuseFilter/history/188 shows that the filter was deleted by Triplestop (talk · contribs) on 4 September 2013. I've asked them to comment here. 64.40.54.143 (talk) 23:23, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Filter 188 was an exact duplicate of Special:AbuseFilter/148. I have deleted 188 and updated the UAA list. Triplestop (talk) 23:51, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks! -- Alexf 00:10, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

AfD needing a WP:SNOW closure

Job completed by Jreferee. -- Diannaa (talk) 03:22, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Could an uninvolved admin please close Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Kevin Rudd behavioural and personality related controversies? There's a very strong consensus there to delete the article as soon as possible. Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 02:15, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh, just delete it per any reasonable admin exemption to wp::adminaccount. Send complaints to my talk page. NE Ent 02:25, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Given that I'd participated in a related discussion in the lead up to the AfD and have, from memory, had disagreements with the article creator in the past, it wouldn't have been a very good idea if I'd speedy closed the AfD discussion and deleted. Nick-D (talk) 01:08, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Stalking, owning, edit warring, NPOV and Uncivil Comments/accusations on my talk page by Roscelese

Below are incidents of going behind all my edits and changing them which I believe qualifies as edit stalking. They violated no rules. I noticed a comment left on my talk page and checked to see who left it only to find Roscoles reverted all my edits concerning abortion. My edits mostly linked articles with common themes through the see also page and did some minor editing on a couple. Roscoless also accused me of spamming whatever that was meant to imply on my talk page. That was not assuming good faith. They were not unreasonable edits and made it easier to link common articles and did some other minor edits also. Roscoelese clearly does not adhere to WP:NPOV and has stalked my edits. Please warn Roscolese to not stalk me, post on my talk page or consider a block Roscolese for some time if this continues. I do not appreciate Roscoeles's accusations and have asked Roscoelese to leave my talk page alone. After looking at Roscoelese edits and comments I have decided I have no desire to interact with that editor on my talk page. I do not mind edits to my edits but following behind my edits and reverting all of them was not in the best interest of wikipedia's neutral editing goal. An obvious point of view and likely agenda is apparent in Roscoelese's edits.

Ramblings not Really Pertinent to the Above Concern: Apparently Roscolese has some friends who support that type of editing. They are in no doubt done with a extreme bias yet nothing I could see has been done to limit Roscolese from violating Misplaced Pages rules regularly. Roscoelese likely will email or otherwise contact them. The comments here about my concerns will highlight those in Roscoelese's camp and their similar agendas and edit warring. Oh well what else would one suspect? Welcome to the "honest discussion". I may decide to take another extended break from editing again but who truly cares right? Wiki truly has come to petty agenda pushing and having to resort to this forum all to often. This may be a huge waste of my time that could be spent improving articles that are less agenda driven which I prefer to do but will not be bullied by uncivil editors. That would allow the agenda warriors to win and grossly cast Misplaced Pages as non-neutral. Apparently some see no need to remain neutral when the bands of mischievous monkeys have formed under the pretense of "consensus". That may sound negative but I bet that statement would have much consensus among the infrequent editors and quite possibly the many regular ones as well. I previously edited as 208.54.40.220 and have no control over the IP changing as millions of others do not also. Sorry to disappoint all you paranoid sock puppet conspiracy buffs. This occurs to millions of internet users, so save your specious claims and learn how the internet works before making accusations based on technology you do not comprehend. I suppose some hyper banner could ban this IP but sometime soon a new one will be assigned which is beyond my control. It is really nice though as I do not have to deal with nasty uncivil comments on my talk page for long periods. I have no desire to give Misplaced Pages my email address and thus will likely always be an outside infrequent editor as I have for many years. But I believe my concerns can be addressed based on their merits and not a paranoid viewpoint that he's not one of us paranoid behavior. I guess I sound a little negative and apologize for that but I showed much restraint being that I have no fear to not do so. I believe in good faith, don't bite, civility so I have limited my pessimism somewhat. Well off to undue the vandalism of my edits. Maybe this squeaky wheel will get some grease. 172.56.10.73 (talk) 04:14, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Edits of Roscolese directly following my edits below: 14:08, 13 September 2013 (diff | hist) . . (-52)‎ . . Abortion-rights movements ‎ (I get what you're trying to say, but this is convoluted and possibly redundant; mine might not be much better, but it's a try) (current) 14:05, 13 September 2013 (diff | hist) . . (-297)‎ . . National Pro-Life Religious Council ‎ (Reverted to revision 503749238 by 75.114.225.30: Rv spam. (TW)) 14:04, 13 September 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+290)‎ . . User talk:208.54.40.220 ‎ (→‎Please stop spamming: new section) (current) 14:04, 13 September 2013 (diff | hist) . . (-293)‎ . . Concerned Women for America ‎ (Reverted to revision 571536139 by Roscelese: Rv spam, unconstructive edits. (TW)) 14:03, 13 September 2013 (diff | hist) . . (-1,632)‎ . . Anti-abortion movements ‎ (Reverted to revision 572737582 by Jamesmcmahon0: Rv spam. (TW)) 14:02, 13 September 2013 (diff | hist) . . (-38)‎ . . Right to life ‎ (It's already in the pro-life orgs category; please don't spam it everywhere) (current)

I'm really tired of this user's harassment (he's already been blocked once under a different IP for harassing me). Dude needs to learn that the right response to a user nominating for deletion an article on something he likes or is affiliated with is not to go ballistic and harass people (or to spam the article into unrelated ones). I think this insane rant really speaks for itself. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:04, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

• Calling me names shows lack of civility and respect. You stalked me and reverted my edits that did not fit your viewpoint and now you call me names. You continue with false accusations. You need to learn how to be civil and quit stalking editors in order to promote your view. You seem to mock, harass, and ignore sources, editors, and organizations that dares challenge the way you demand things should be. No wonder people leave wiki. You do much more harm to the community by your name calling than good. Your stereotype shows lack of sensitivity to mentally ill people. If I was "insane" as you mocked my character consider how that would be taken. There is no tolerance of that by the wiki community. Please seriously consider that and show some respect to other people even if you do not agree with them. How you can avoid a temporary cooling off block for comments like that are beyond my understanding. Are going to use racists comments or call me mentally challenged next? Shame on you!!! 172.56.10.73 (talk) 06:04, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, where did Roscolese call you a name? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:46, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
• I spy, with my little eye, something rapidly approaching that begins with 'B'. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:12, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

What does providing your email address have to do with anything? Nil Einne (talk) 12:21, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• Maybe we need something like an AN/ANI blacklist for the protectors of the wiki who toil to keep articles on abortion and other fanatic-attracting areas decent? Would that be technically possible? People like User:Roscelese and User:AndyTheGrump get precious little thanks for their good work, and they keep getting dragged to AN or ANI by the zealots they disoblige.

As for "stalking" you, 172.56.xx, each userpage contains a link to the user's contributions. This feature exists among other things to allow people who find tendentious or otherwise disruptive editing to go check what else the editor in question has been doing, and to revert in case those edits were also disruptive. Because that has been known to happen. There is absolutely nothing wrong with Roscelese "following" you in the way you describe. Heck, I follow users' edits in that way all the time. The term "stalking" for Misplaced Pages actions is discouraged nowadays (please see here), precisely because the word can mislead people into thinking there's something wrong with following someone's edits. If you have wikihounding in mind, please follow the link and see that it doesn't apply here. Bishonen | talk 21:55, 15 September 2013 (UTC).

Just some advice, 172.56.10.73: It doesn't serve you well to file a complaint here and then complain about the process and claim it is unfair before people even have a chance to assess your claims. I'm talking about statements like this:

"Apparently some see no need to remain neutral when the bands of mischievous monkeys have formed under the pretense of 'consensus'."
"Sorry to disappoint all you paranoid sock puppet conspiracy buffs."

You might not have been directing them against the readers of your post but they read like they are accusations. You're unlikely to get much sympathy if you assume from the start that Editors commenting here will take sides against you. Liz 10:44, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

MFD

As an IP, I can't create Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Meeples10/School1st.

Please create it, content as;

{{subst:mfd2| pg={{subst:#titleparts:{{subst:PAGENAME}}||2}}| text=]}}

Thx

88.104.27.75 (talk) 02:15, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Done. Why is this on AN? --erachima talk 02:23, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

'coz I required an admin. Where else should it be? It's not an ongoing incident or anything. Sorry if it was any hassle, but srsly... this is actually more what AN is for than most of the shite you get here. Anyway - thx 88.104.27.75 (talk) 02:28, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

You don't need an admin to create pages. I'm not an admin. For general assistance that doesn't require admin tools, the WP:Help Desk is the better option. --erachima talk 02:37, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Harassment from an admin

This may be a new one, but...I feel as though I have been being harassed by User:Spartaz when it comes to pornography-related articles. The situation stemmed from a bad-faith AfD (granted, there wasn't really any harassment there, but it became pretty clear that he doesn't like pornography; more on that later), but recently I re-created the article Elexis Monroe that ended up being speedily deleted (not by him/her), but then when I brought the situation to DRV, Spartaz closed it early because s/he claimed that the situation was getting too heated and that certain users were personalizing things (, ). I then told him/her on his/her talk page that I didn’t think s/he should have performed the close due to his/her apparent bias, to which s/he once again accused me of personalizing things but s/he also suggested that I take the situation to WT:DRV. I instead opened a thread here, and eventually I excused myself from the whole thing and even went on a wikibreak not merely because people didn’t agree with me, but most of said users were users that I have had disagreements with in the past (some people might conclude that that might be saying something about me, but I think I presented myself fairly).

The thing is, now there’s a discussion at DRV about am adult film star named Deauxma (which I didn’t create, btw; I merely !voted in favor of it), where Spartaz is once again attacking me and accusing me of personalizing things. This seems to stem from the thread creator (User:Rebecca1990) suggesting that all the delete !votes coming from people who don’t like pornography (which I do agree with), but the thing is, when Rebecca suggests something like that and then I (and other users) agree with it, Spartaz doesn’t come after all of us, s/he comes after me alone (this is milder, but this and this are harsher). And then s/he comes and says I'm personalizing things? (BTW, how is this (line 38) personalizing anything; and why isn’t that a good suggestion?) Speaking of that, I didn’t discuss this further at DRV because, frankly, that isn’t what DRV is for; in addition, carrying on a discussion like that is steering away from the purpose of the actual DRV.

Basically, all I want is for Spartaz to leave me alone. Now, this aspect I am personalizing because of how s/he has been coming after me (I’m not sure now if his real bias is against porn or against me). If you don’t agree with me about a topic, that’s fine, but don’t just continue to berate me and then wonder why I get upset about it. Frankly, Spartaz is an admin, and admins are supposed to be setting good examples for other users to follow; this is not one of those examples. Erpert 19:37, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I think you are mistaking editors that don't like our pornography articles for editors that don't like pornography. So long as you continue to fail to draw that distinction you are going to appear to be personalizing disputes in this area. Spartaz's actions seem to me to be a reasonable application of admin discretion; if you want to make the assertion Spartaz doesn't like pornography and so imply that he is acting from bias then we would need to see diffs to demonstrate that assertion. CIreland (talk) 19:55, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

"I think you are mistaking editors that don't like our pornography articles for editors that don't like pornography"...and I personally think that's frequently a distinction without a real difference. In my experience on Misplaced Pages so far, there are obviously some editors that dislike pornography-related articles and will sometimes come up with some pretty far-fetched or invalid ideas for why they should be deleted. A lot of this activity appears to predate my involvement in the Pornography Project, since around March of this year. Is "Spartaz" one of those editors? I'm actually not sure, but "Erpert" and "Spartaz" certainly do seem to rub each other the wrong way IMHO. I actually have a lot of respect for some of the tough calls that "Spartaz" has made as an administrator in the past, but it may be the case that their experiences at DRV (see below) may have colored their usual response to pornography-related articles over time. Guy1890 (talk) 23:05, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I think your characterization of others' votes is a little off. Guidelines are there as an aid to try and depict and organize the current practices, rather than to codify them in a binding way. Practice can indeed disagree with the guideline and choose to ignore it; and when that happens enough, hopefully the guideline will change to reflect the new practice. I have no opinion on PORNBIO in particular though, as I have no experience with that area of the encyclopedia. That said though, I do think Spartaz needs to calm down. He appears to be sick of you and is overreacting to some of the things you say. I don't think it rises to the level of harassment, but "conduct unbecoming", maybe. I'd say you guys should both keep a distance from each other for a while. equazcion 20:05, 15 Sep 2013 (UTC)

Just for convenience, I wanted to provide a link to the early closure Erpert alludes to: Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2013 August 8. I do think Spartaz was a little too previously involved with this topic and this user to provide a close. Not so sure about this anymore, most of the quoted issues seemed to crop up subsequent to this close. equazcion 20:23, 15 Sep 2013 (UTC)

For convienience, here is a link to the previous AN where Erpert complained of my early close. . It appears that his charactarisation of that situation was not supported on review. DRV has zero tolerance of disruptive use of DRVs as platforms to attack other users and my early closure was consistent with DRV practise for years. Also relevant are S.Marshall's comments in recent porn related DRVs where Erpert's (amongst others) aggressive badgering and labelling of opposing views is clearly discouraging them from offering opinions. This clearly is not acceptable and this disruptive behaviour is distorting discussions. . Spartaz 00:33, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

"Also relevant are S.Marshall's comments in recent porn related DRVs where Erpert's (amongst others) aggressive badgering and labelling of opposing views is clearly discouraging them from offering opinions." I don't get the sense that anyone that might be on the anti-porn side of things on Misplaced Pages is a "shrinking violet" by any stretch of the imagination. Like it or not, there's a real disconnect between what happens at AfD and DRV when it comes to PORNBIO, and it's not going to get any better unless something is done about it. Maybe this isn't the forum for that. Guy1890 (talk) 03:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I was reading a little more at DRV and AFD. Does it seem that the people who hang around DRV and AFD respectively have different views on whether or not PORNBIO is to be followed? The so-called "bad-faith AFD" seems to stem in my mind from Spartaz' experience at DRV, where the feeling seems to be that PORNBIO no longer reflects consensus; but it failed because at AFD they still abide by it. This discrepancy (if I'm correct that there is one) seems like it's bound to cause trouble in the future. equazcion 21:19, 15 Sep 2013 (UTC)

"This discrepancy (if I'm correct that there is one) seems like it's bound to cause trouble in the future." That's a very true and astute observation. I've recently come to the conclusion that taking pornography-related articles to DRV is a giant waste of time for this very reason, since there appears to be hardly any respect or deferance at all for PORNBIO (which is a guideline that I've had no input into myself) there. Again, a lot of these issues appear to predate my involvement in the Pornography Project, since around March of this year. Guy1890 (talk) 23:05, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• The irony of a prolific badgerer like Erpert complaining when I respond to his comments is far from lost on me. What relevance my admin bit has to that discussion is beyond me as I have taken no admin actions in regard to this DRV. I have been a regular at DRV since sometime in 2006 and I do not believe that any of my comments or opinions I have expressed are inconsistant with my practice over the last 7 years of advocating for BLPs and mainspace content to have proper sourcing as required in the GNG/N/V and BLP. That some editors believe that reconstituted press releases and industry awards that garner no real world coverage or commentary are sufficient to justify our maintaining unsourced BLPs does not mean that editors who disagree with this and respond to their badgering and frankly spurious objections and labelling of opponents by reference to community norms and standards are harressing them. Spartaz 00:14, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
  • There is at least one form of admin abuse occurring. Killiondude (talk) 00:35, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
  • "That some editors believe that reconstituted press releases and industry awards that garner no real world coverage or commentary are sufficient to justify our maintaining unsourced BLPs"...that's really an unfortunate and not an especially fair representation of the kind of discussions that have gone on at DRV about these topics recently. Guy1890 (talk) 03:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
    • It would be outstanding if any animosity or ridicule expressed here were met with an attempt to defuse it rather than escalate it. equazcion 00:40, 16 Sep 2013 (UTC)
      • Unfortunately, this is a behavioral situation that needs to be confronted; we are well part the point where defusing it is a plausible alternative. Just a month ago, Erpert made similar accusations against Spartaz, only to have them unanimously rejected here. Rather than accepting community guidance, Erpert has continued to cast aspersions on, and level accusations of bad faith against, editors whose positions he disagrees with. The failure to sanction him for this disruptive behavior has led, unfortunately, to at least two other editors who share his opinions to emulate his behavior (one of whom Erpert canvassed regarding this discussion). The latest dispute has been marked by some deliberate baiting of Spartaz, followed by complaints about his response. This is unacceptable, uncivil behavior, taken in order to gain advantage in a content dispute. Erpert has been repeatedly warned about this type of behavior for nearly two years (I believe this is the earliest occasion), but his refusal to conform to applicable standards has become more pronounced and more disruptive. Summarily closing this complaint as groundless will not likely produce immediate results, but it would be a good first step. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:27, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
        • HW, why do you keep bringing that old AfD up? You seem to think everything I do is in bad faith. I clearly explained why I opened this here instead of on the DRV page, so I'm not going to explain that again. Also, notifying Rebecca1990 about it is not canvassing; she is the one who opened the DRV, and WP:AN rules clearly state that she must be notified. And do you think it's disruptive behavior because there are other editors that share my opinion? I'm far from a battler, so if you think that's my intention, you're way off.

Anyway, I'm not even talking about pornography mainly here; I'm talking about harassment. Disagreements are one thing, but people can't just invade every discussion I'm in with accusations (btw, does Spartaz have a different definition of "personalization" than I have?). Speaking of that, Spartaz, you keep accussing me of badgering and labeling people when all I'm doing is responding to other people's comments (and if it were badgering, wouldn't I have been warned via WP:UTM?). And per Guy1890, my intention is never to rub anyone the wrong way; I just feel Spartaz is mean toward me alone (if I'm wrong, prove me wrong right now). When I asked simple questions in discussions like this, people didn't want to answer them; opting instead to make comments like HW made above (thankfully, not many users did that this time around). And saying that I'm disrupting the discussion is ridiculous because I'm one of the people who tries to steer the discussion back to the original topic. For instance, if the validity of a guideline seems debatable, it should be discussed on the talk page of that guideline. Am I wrong about that? Erpert 02:17, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• Disputes are very stressful and should be avoided whenever possible. You should all return to Deauxma's DRV discussion only if you can avoid getting sidetracked again. Most of Deauxma's DRV isn't even a discussion about Deauxma anymore. I keep reminding people not to get sidetracked but they keep on swaying away from the main topic somehow. Rebecca1990 (talk) 06:33, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

So, what are you asking for here, Erpert , an interaction ban? That is unlikely to be successful if you both continue to participate in DRV. I'm not taking sides here, I just wonder what resolution you are hoping to get by filing this here at AN. Liz 10:31, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I just want Spartaz to stop being so rough on me; that's all. I'm not asking for an interaction ban because I know that's impossible; you can't help running into different people here and there. (OAN: Per S. Marshall below, I'm actually not a member of WikiProject Pornography; in fact, I'm not a member of any WikiProject.) Erpert 16:38, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• Well now. What's this open can doing here, and why are there worms wriggling around all over the place?

  I think the first issue here is that Erpert, Rebecca1990 and other members active in WikiProject Pornography are not getting satisfaction from DRV. That's a major issue from my point of view. DRV is the end of the line: there's no appeal from a DRV. Therefore users have to have confidence that the process is fair. It's essential: this is an editor retention issue.

  Now, there are a very small number of users who regularly attend DRV, and Spartaz is at present the main closer, so if you clash with the DRV regulars in general or with Spartaz in particular, there's not much chance of getting any input from others. So for this kind of situation, where it's alleged that the main DRV closer and/or DRV regulars are showing bias, the only fair answer we have is for previously uninvolved editors to review DRV's recent discussions and Spartaz' closes, and decide for themselves to what extent the accusations of bias are well-founded.

  This pretty much has to happen. As soon as it's alleged that this small number of users is biased, our formal processes come to a crunching halt: they just don't allow for that possibility. Therefore we're left with the default Misplaced Pages way, which is for independent, unbiased editors to read, comprehend, think, evaluate, and comment. It's really important that this is happens. Even though I'm a DRV regular and I think we're doing things right and that Erpert's complaint is unfounded, I'd nevertheless encourage anyone reading this discussion please to look closely at DRV's recent decisions and weigh in with their view.

  I think the second issue is that DRV takes, and has taken for some time, a very dim view of PORNBIO, and to a lesser extent most other SNGs. We see the GNG as the arbiter of what should be included and will happily overrule SNGs if there's conflict. This is surprising for some editors who have a basic expectation that their WikiProject's favourite SNG will prevail.

  In this particular case a further issue is that at least some of us (including me) openly question the reliability/independence of AVN and XBIZ as sources. This questioning is extremely corrosive for WikiProject Pornography, because if AVN and XBIZ aren't reliable/independent sources, then what valid sources do exist for porn articles? If consensus moves in that direction and we do collectively decide to eliminate those sources, then a really high percentage of our pornstar articles are headed for the dustbin.

  As a third issue, and this might just be me, I've also wondered whether BLP applies to pornstar articles. For example, is it best to treat that Deuxma article as a BLP? Or is it best treated as an article about a fictional character portrayed by a nameless porn performer? This seems important to me because it helps us decide where the bar for a pornstar article should be.—S Marshall T/C 10:51, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• About AVN and XBIZ, IMO AVN is pretty more "journalistic" than XBIZ, second I distinguish between the printed magazines and the websites, the websites are actually 85% made of press releases while at least AVN Magazine in its printed form is 85% made of original content including feature length articles, insights, biographical portraits, reviews, interviews, editorials and opinion pieces. XBIZ publishes several magazines, but the ones I checked were very poor of original contents. About BLP Vs. fictional characters, I think it is a mixture of the two things, like for wrestlers or even artists like Lady Gaga, it is an editor's duty to weigh the elements that belong to the one or to the other, eg statements by pornstars who say they are nymphomaniacs, swingers and/or bisexuals should be, in general terms, almost always kept out from the articles. Cavarrone 12:52, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• It would be hugely helpful if we could somehow draw a clear line between parts of AVN and XBIZ that are or are not reliable. Is there an easy way to distinguish press releases that have been (at most) minimally changed from actual articles? Hobit (talk) 17:23, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• What I said above. Short articles published by AVN/XBIZ in the section "company-news" or marked as "company press" are very likely to be press releases. On the other hand, the printed AVN magazine includes some easily identificable "secondary" journalism (reliable is not the correct word, as a primary source is not automatically unreliable), eg. the 6-pages-article used as a source in Fashionistas, the 10 or 12 pages article about female porn published this month, the columns by Clyde DeWitt, the "editorial desk" column or the yearly June special issue named "The Fresh Issue" are exemples of valid journalism. A different question is if they are sufficient for a claim of meeting GNG, but frankly I have no record of discussions in which anyone claimed a subject passing general notability on the sole basis of his/her AVN/XbiZ coverage, we are generally extra-cautious about that. Cavarrone 21:11, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• As one of the DRV regulars who generally leans toward inclusion and has no problem with porn coverage, I do feel that there is a significant problem here. Partly there is badgering on the part of Erpert. Partly there are editors that I would say show up to porn bio discussions with a clear leaning toward deletion. But mostly because of WP:PORNBIO. It does seem to create a SNG where folks are generally notable even though they really have no chance of meeting WP:N if you ignore press releases and reprints of press releases. One could argue that's because mainstream news doesn't really cover these folks, so there is a cultural bias that the SNG addresses. But one could also argue that these just aren't notable folks and in any case we shouldn't be writing articles based on press releases. That fundamental issue needs to be resolved. And I think it can be resolved if we work hard to identify actual reliable sources in the field and find a way to narrow the list of awards that we consider in the SNG. Put another way, personalities are in part to blame here, but mostly its a policy problem. And S Marshall notes, that's solveable by getting a wider range of folks involved in getting these issues (RSes for porn, awards that make one notable) resolved. Hobit (talk) 17:23, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Amendment to Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Locke Cole

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

The ban on interaction between Locke Cole and Netoholic imposed in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Locke_Cole in 2006 is terminated in light of the time that has passed without further problems.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:17, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Discuss this

Can't start AfD

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

I just tried to start an AfD discussion for the Niggers in the White House article. However, after I added the template to the article and tried to click through to create a page at the AfD location, it won't let me. It says that it is locked and only for administrator access. What's going on? Why is the AfD page that hasn't been created locked? I assume that it's been salted, but why? Silverseren 05:42, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Seems to be working fine on my end... Erpert 05:47, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Maybe it has something to do with the "nigger" part of the title tripping a filter of some description. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 05:49, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

It's presumably the title blacklist. Gimme a sec, I'll create it for you. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 05:50, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

@Silver seren: done. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 05:52, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll go and finish it then. Silverseren 05:53, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Couldn't this have waited until the article was off the main page? See point 5 at Misplaced Pages:Speedy keep#Applicability. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:11, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Whoa, good catch. I'll close it. Erpert 06:31, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

If you do that, i'll just reopen it. It shouldn't have been let through DYK in the first place. Silverseren 06:32, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I think an article on this sort of subject, which is newly created, quite possibly offensive, and has sources that don't seem to be about the subject at all, deserves an AfD even if it is at DYK. Really, this is something the DYK reviewer should have caught in the first place. But I guess they were lured in because the article looked pretty and appeared to have a bunch of sources. Silverseren 06:32, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Any article with "Nigger" in it is bound to be offensive to a select some. I can say no more — a seasoned administrator approved this article, and another seasoned administrator approved it for its Main Page appearance. I'm thinking two seasoned admins can't be wrong about their decisions, but oh well, let's just let the AfD flow. ☯ Bonkers The Clown\(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 09:48, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

It seems deliberately provocative. Yes, it has some historical information but most people won't read beyond the title. Liz 09:55, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• On the article itself, I think it could probably be saved with a bit of fancy footwork in the editing arena- I doubt, for instance, that there's actually any reason for that particular adjective to be used anywhere except the title. And arguably it is quite a significant historical issue. Basket _Feudalist 15:28, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Mop alert

If there's anyone around, there's a hella backlog at WP:AIV. I gotta go to work, myself. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:14, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Nooo problem, most people here are school children, and it's nearly half-four now so they'll just be settling in front of their computers. Which may or may not be in basements or trailers, I dunno. Have a good day! Basket _Feudalist 15:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

UTRS help requested

UTRS could certainly do with some fresh admin eyes. I appear to be the only consistently active admin/CU there, and I can hardly review my own blocks. Any help would be appreciated! --Jezebel'sPonyo 21:09, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

File needs deleting

This file is overdue for deletion: File:The Myth of Mental Illness.JPG. 203.118.187.214 (talk) 21:25, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

AWB request

On Misplaced Pages talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage User:Vanquisher.UA has requested access to AWB again. Earlier I granted it, it was then withdrawn after it was used to remove whitespace. Can an independent admin decide whether or not to grant access for Vanquisher.UA? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:27, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Topic Ban Removal Request

In this thread, I was topic banned on all matters related to the Falkland Islands. This is an area of editing in which I had made a significant and prolific contribution. I am requesting that topic ban is revoked.

The basis of the topic ban proposed by User:Dpmuk was that the constant back and forth between us was making consensus impossible. At the time, I did really defend myself as I was utterly despondent after nearly a year of harassment from User:Gaba p.

As shown here the animosity stemmed from a block as a suspected sock puppet of User:Alex79818. You will please note that one of the factors in unblocking him, was that I gave additional details to User: JamesBWatson. As a result, he was given another chance to edit. Please note that both the original blocking admin and User:JamesBWatson considered the original case for sock puppetry to be compelling.

As a result of this Gaba p continued to follow my edits attacking me personally it was constant and unremitting. He was incapable of commenting on content but was constantly pointing fingers , a good example is the archive.

The thread was opened on 13 May. Please note that I agreed to a self-imposed moratorium on April 30, in which I agreed to stop commenting to allow others to comment. An agreement User:Gaba p broke almost immediately wikilawyering to claim it was only on one thread. The only reason I had in fact commented was at the request of User:Dpmuk.

The basis of the topic ban was the allegation of a constant back and forth. As I have noted I had in fact ceased to be active in the talk page for a period of two weeks before this was started. On my talk page User:Dpmuk acknowledged that "my gut feeling is that Gaba_p is more likely the root cause".

I ask it to be noted that I remained civil, I discussed content not personalities, I went to WP:ANI to ask that an editor repeatedly warned for incivility and blocked for personal attacks simply be stopped from bullying me. A number of false allegations were made and diffs falsified (I even demonstrated this was the case). By using smoke screen tactics he got away with it repeatedly.

Can I ask that is the message you wished to send was that remaning civil and discussing content, when faced by an editor that was uncivil and commented on editors not content, is a complete waste of time. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:33, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Administrative backlog