Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:44, 5 October 2014

• 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 70 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 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 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 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

Requesting AWB access

Following a complaint on ANI about 70 days ago, my AWB access was revoked by Nick after community consensus.(check )

Yesterday I had asked Nick if I should request for the AWB access based on my performance since the revocation.(check ) I hereby request access to AWB.

I apologize for any inconvenience I caused. I understand the concerns that were raised. During this period, I have made about 30,000 edits and avoided any mistakes. I have been involved with a few backlogs, article creation, promotion to GA, DYK.

Thanks -- OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:41, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Can you give us a summary of what you did wrong, and what you intend to do differently if we decide to give you back your AWB access? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:01, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

@Od Mishehu: I had changed dates on about 245 pages, and carried out delinking of wikilinks on articles, such edits violates rules of AWB.

I won't be doing that again. I will be mostly using AWB for working on the backlogs as usual, like I have done before. For a name, there is a category, Category:Infobox book image param needs updating. Used to have about 15,000 previously, I had fixed 5595. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:25, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. You weren't stripped of AWB access for delinking and changing dates, and the link you provide above is rather disingenuous – this is the actual discussion that led to your being barred from AWB. Those were just two of a big stack of reasons, and the briefest glance at your recent contributions shows that the circumstances which led to it haven't been addressed. Among the things that led to your being stripped of the bit were making strings of trivial edits with no visible impact on an article – still going on as of today; and, more significantly, making rushed script assisted edits without bothering to check their edits, resulting in errors being introduced into the mainspace – , , , , today alone. Yes, everybody makes mistakes and one mistake every thousand or so edits is understandable, but that's five obvious errors (in the sense that even the quickest of glances would have told you you were making a mistake) out of 28 mainspace edits today. An 18% error rate is atrocious, especially since in light of this appeal you were presumably being more careful than usual. In light of what happened to Rich Farmbrough, you're getting off lightly in that it's only AWB you're blocked from. Mogism (talk) 15:59, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

@Mogism: I have not used any scripts. I started doing the persondata backlog from today, are not errors. I agree that there were more than 2 concerns and also that the edits were contrary to the rules of AWB. I assure that I won't be making them. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:07, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

@OccultZone: This edit was an error. You then kindly fixed the error a few hours later. GoingBatty (talk) 19:43, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

@Mogism and OccultZone: Cleaning up backlogs is a reasonable task, even when it doesn't have a visible impact on the page. (The benefit of using AWB to make such edits is that it can also make other general fixes and typo fixes at the same time. The down side is that it takes longer to check each edit before saving.) It's great when OccultZone uses an edit summary to make it clear why the edit was being done, and suggest that OccultZone does so for every edit. I also suggest that OccultZone marks edits as minor edits when doing tasks such as adding {{Persondata}} short descriptions or {{WPBIO}} |listas= values. I wonder if this edit and this edit are correct. GoingBatty (talk) 20:11, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: About , check . It was confirmed that Chinese, Vietnamese and Korean names are not same as the western, middle eastern and South Asian names. You can check the defaultsort, they are same. Check Hu Jintao's defaultsort for an example. is also correct because "Melamparambil" is not included in his real name, many Indian names include the name of profession or region. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 22:20, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I happened to work on persondata for the first time ever, today. Although it is pretty obvious that I would be more careful than ever with that, it was indeed first time and I know that I wasn't perfect with it. When I used AWB, I had "Typo fixing" disabled, and later I had also disabled "auto tagging". OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 22:20, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I happened to work on persondata for the first time ever, today. Well, no, you chose to work on it for the first time today. It's a subtle difference, but important. What made you choose it, and what research did you do concerning persondata before working on it? I'm asking not to be picky, but because I think your answer might be valuable in showing how you decide to do mass edits, and how you check the edits you have done. Begoon  22:31, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Correct and I looked on to the short descriptions that have been used by other similar articles, before I will add some. After these all edits, I have found that best way to check edit is to re-read before submitting it. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 22:51, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support It is obvious that whenever you have the latest evidence of violation, you are prevented from the right. Few days ago, I had opposed the rollback right of Flyer22, however, I had to realize after seeing the closure that output is also measured by the experience, that the user has with the distinctive editing pattern. When there is almost 0 trouble, it can be appreciable. I liked , After reading the users TP and archives I have found no issues which give me cause for concern. Noteswork (talk) 17:37, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
• Comment Quoting GoingBatty: The down side is that it takes longer to check each edit before saving. Looking at the ANI discussion Mogism links, and reading Mogism's comments on recent errors even when editing manually, I think this is certainly one thing people will be concerned about. Editing at high speed needs good grasp of what is being done, and careful checking so that errors don't become a huge problem.

• The edit rates discussed at that ANI make checking edits next to impossible. Can Occultzone tell us what they will do about this issue, so that we can have confidence they will be actually checking edits?
• Additionally can they explain how they will deal with future concerns expressed by other editors with their automated editing? Again, reading that ANI, it seemed very difficult to get OZ to even admit they had made any errors at all. Communication, and possibly language, issues were a major stalling point in that discussion. Has there been progress there?
• Finally, will OZ make a firm commitment that, should errors, or a series of errors, be discovered in future automated edits, they will fix the errors themselves, immediately, before moving onto anything else?

I think answers to those questions might make folks more comfortable about this. Begoon  20:36, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

• 12-17 edits every minute for hours may lead anyone to believe that I am not checking edits before clicking 'save' button. I don't deny that, I have actually worked on that by giving more time into making edits look more manual than I used to do before. Rechecking is always best way to deal with.
• Like Nick had analyzed in the end, that I was speaking more for saving the access than recognizing the mistake, he seemed to be correct with that. It can be seen through the archives of my talk page. But since the next day(18 July), I have not tried anyone to give any chance that they would complain. Tried to improve my approach in dealing with the people. Talk page remains free of complaints.
• Obviously and it is one of the core concept of editing that whenever you make any errors, you have to fix each of them. I am sure that I wouldn't be making in fair amount, and I will try figuring out soon. During these many edits(since revocation), I had some instances where I would make an error but fix it quickly. Thanks OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 22:47, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

But you didn't answer the questions at all really - by point, here's what you ignored or missed:

• You didn't tell us how you would check edits, you just were concerned with whether it "looked like" you were checking them. This sentence worries me enormously: I have actually worked on that by giving more time into making edits look more manual than I used to do before. You've worked on making your edits "look more manual"? How about working on actually checking them?
• I asked you how you would deal with future concerns.
• You didn't firmly commit to fixing all of your future errors immediately, before moving on. You did say you are aware of this, and you want to improve, so that's encouraging.

I'm sorry if you think I'm picking on you, and it's quite possible I've misinterpreted your answers, because, and here's the other problem, your English is very hard to understand. In the previous ANI you breezed past concerns about communication, raised by BrownHairedGirl and others, basically ignoring them. That worries me. I think you think your communication is better than it really is. It's actually very difficult to follow lots of what you say. I don't think it's wise to let folks who can't answer basic English queries about their actions in an understandable way use mass editing tools. Sorry if that's harsh, but there are practicalities to consider here. Begoon  23:20, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

• I had answered that above, I had said that I re-read every edit before submitting. If I wasn't checking before submitting, I guess I would be having many of the errors and complaints during these 30,000 edits.
• I would attempt to resolve the issue before making any other edit that is related with the issue. For example, when I had started doing the listas parameter, I had complaints on first day, but that was also the last day. It is usually better to resolve at first.
• Yes I agree that I would fix the current issue before moving on, knowing that small amount of mistakes can take bigger form if they haven't been resolved. Just like it happened before, and it should be avoided.

In fact, I had promoted articles to GA, DYK. It was pretty easy to collaborate other editors who were working along. There were numerous queries, but I don't see them repeating same question or concern again. I agree that it was one of the issue that I would ignore the concerns about the edits that I was making, because I thought that I was going by the policy of basic editing although it contradicted the rules of AWB about which I wasn't so aware, but that was my ignorance. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 23:46, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for all your answers. I'm sorry if you feel I bombarded you, but automated tools have the power to do a lot of damage, very quickly, which is difficult to fix. I'm not going to !vote either way - I think you have very good intentions, but I worry that you tend to overestimate your own language and editing knowledge and skills, which can cause problems, so that leaves me undecided, at this point. Begoon  00:25, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• Still oppose I see no reason to reinstate AWB here. The tasks described sound like something that should be raised at WP:BOTREQ too. Lugnuts 08:30, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
• During these 4 days, and considering the above mentioned discussion, I have made about 2000+ edits, it includes 1000 edits concerning with the living parameter. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 02:46, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• Weak support I think we can give the access back. I revoked OccultZone's access once but I think they are more experienced after this time. We can always take the right back once again if more problems occur. The last time the problems were because they used a third-party script in a large scale. I also believe that it's better if they do any changes semi-automatically and slowly than with a bot. It's true they still make mistakes, most probably due to hight edit ratio, even without AWB. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:56, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

So access has been revoked more than once? I didn't realise that. I'm still concerned - I'd certainly like to see it stipulated as a condition of any return of access that they agree to immediately fix any errors pointed out to them, before moving on, as they seem to agree above. Begoon  08:29, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. I'd like to AGF and presume that OccultZone has "really learned a lot from {the} incident" and would benefit the project with renewed AWB access. I find i am unable to do so, however, on a couple of counts. One, i'm still concerned about communication ability; i don't really see improvement in it versus the previous incident. Two, the answers to Begoon's questions are, at best, evasive and, possibly actually deceptive; i would like to see more clear explanation from OZ of what he has learned and how he is planning to modify his behaviour. Three, the point Magioladitis raises, that AWB access has been revoked at least twice, with apparently no learning taking place the first time, at least needs to be answered before it is regranted. Cheers, Lindsay 22:20, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

@LindsayH: I have answered every query, I know now better than what I used to do before that what users usually expect after they raise any concern about the mass editing, especially since the revocation I have tried giving them no chance as I have avoided objectionable edits. For the first time, like it was also noted in the ANI, it was revoked for a different reason. That time I had about 10k edits with AWB, but later, I had 85k, we can say that I had little better idea about not using AWB for the things that lead to revocation. For the 2nd time, it was due to the mass changes to wikilinks, and date/numbers. Although I realized that they are ultimately contradictory to the rules of AWB. I am also concerned with the backlogs that require attention. While most of them cannot be handled with semi-auto programs, some of them like I have named one among few others can be better handled with AWB. If we suppose that there would be similar circumstances like before, I will definitely seek consensus for the changes before making them. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 00:03, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support .. Starting from the end of last year, after Sati (practice) was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section, it was having many edit wars, I was informed by Mark Arsten on Indian noticeboard. My intervention was not a success, after a few days there were more doubts because one theory was not applying on other page or it's subsection that was actually relevant with the content of this page. I was kind of sure that this article would be brought to ARBcom.
  Occult has done enormous work on this article and adequately solved these disputes. It has been helpful for many other pages(e.g. Death by burning, Women in Hinduism). Bladesmulti (talk) 06:52, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

That's great. I'm not quite sure what it has to do with AWB access though, really. Seems to me if OZ has talents dealing with those Indian articles, something we desperately need, then he might be better off devoting more time to that, and less time to churning edits we could get bots to do, avoiding the risk of repeating the problems he's had with those. Just an idea, though, and obviously it's up to OZ how he wants to spend his time, in the end. Begoon  07:27, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for writing. My comment was more about how Occult is capable of handling situations. IMO, Occult has provided just enough evidence of an explanation that may reasonably be correct, and it will be sufficient for giving 'em enough rope. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:26, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but read what you linked... I don't want to see a well-intentioned user like OZ "hang himself". OZ has a lot to offer, and I don't want to see him back in the same, problematic situations he has been in, since we can't afford to lose good users. Begoon  12:20, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Request for clarity on "Syrian Civil War" general sanctions

General sanctions were established for Syrian Civil War-related articles about a year ago. In recent days, however, these sanctions have been applied to many articles relating to the ongoing conflict and insurgency in Iraq, such as Iraqi insurgency (2011–present). Of course, the conflict in Iraq involves "spill-over" from the Syrian Civil War, but I think it is a stretch to call these sanctions "Syrian Civil War" sanctions if they are going to be applied to the Iraqi conflict. In that case, I'd like to request that the general sanctions be renamed to encompass the conflict in both Iraq and Syria, so that there is no mistaking the scope of the sanctions, at present. Clarity should be established, in such a contentious area. RGloucester — ☎ 22:37, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with modifying the sanctions so they cover the Syrian Civil War and the Iraqi Civil War. PhilKnight (talk) 02:26, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

At the moment the sanctions (see Talk:Syrian Civil War/General sanctions cover "all pages related to the Syrian civil war, broadly construed." The question being raised seems to be whether these cover articles such as Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant‎ and certainly articles such as Timeline of the Iraqi insurgency (2014). Dougweller (talk) 09:11, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I assume that they do, given that they are being applied in those articles. I'm not asking wether they should or shouldn't, merely asking for clarity. When an editor is notified about "Syrian Civil War" sanctions, he may not know that these also apply to Iraq-related articles. In other words, I'm asking that the name of the sanctions be changed to encompass their scope. RGloucester — ☎ 13:19, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

That would indeed be helpful. I'm not sure this is the right page though to discuss a community sanction. @Callanecc:, @Bbb23: who are the Admins most involved. Dougweller (talk) 14:22, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

The sanctions were created on this very page, which is why I used it. They are not Arb Com sanctions. RGloucester — ☎ 16:14, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm clear they aren't ArbCom sanctions. As "This page is for posting information and issues that affect administrators." I would have expected ANI to have been the venue, but I'm obviously wrong. Dougweller (talk) 16:27, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• Since no one seems to be doing anything here, and as I don't want this come to naught...I'll propose a name. How about calling them the "Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" general sanctions? That adequately encapsulates the scope, deals with what needs to be dealt with, &c. It is better than trying to come up with something absurd like "Levantine-Mesopotamian conflict (2011–present)". RGloucester — ☎ 22:27, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
• It seems reasonable to me to assume that this should also apply to the current conflict in Iraq as well; after all, it's essentially the same fight, now spread over two countries instead of just one. Lankiveil 04:50, 5 October 2014 (UTC).

• Changing the name seems like a good idea however I don't think it's a good idea to change the name without broadening the scope of the sanctions as well. So my proposal is as follows:

The area of conflict for the Syrian Civil War general sanctions is amended to apply to all pages related to the Syrian Civil War or Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, broadly construed. However the one revert rule continues to apply to articles, not all pages, in the area of conflict.

Addition underlined. Probably worth moving Talk:Syrian Civil War/General sanctions to Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (WP:GS/SCW&ISIL). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:41, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

At the moment 1RR applies to anything to do with the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant as that's been seen as part of the Syrian Civil War. It's worked pretty well I think and I believe it has cut down on edit warring considerably. I would prefer it to continue to apply - I'm not happy to suddenly change it from 1RR to 3RR. I just noticed that Bbb23 is away until at least the 9th which is why he hasn't responded. Dougweller (talk) 12:14, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

That was the intention, the clarification regarding 1RR was that it applies to articles not all pages, which I've clarified a bit. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:58, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

That's fine with me then. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 14:57, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

• I support Callanecc's proposal. RGloucester — ☎ 18:21, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

AfD/IAR review

I made a IAR close at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/After Saturday Comes Sunday (2nd nomination) avoid disruption: I think the nature of the discussions speaks for itself. Since it is quite possible that Discretionary sanctions will be needed, and I am not experienced with that, I ask for assistance. If any admin who was not a participant in the discussion wants to revert my close, please feel free. Possibly I was naive in thinking anything I did could avoid further problems here. DGG ( talk ) 17:50, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

On a related issue, User:Shrike added a DS notice to the talk page. Aren't those meant to be added by Admins? I've added the appropriate edit notice to the page itself, and I certainly think the article comes under A-I discretionary sanctions. The talk page of the article and the AfD are a bit of a clusterfuck. Dougweller (talk) 18:27, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

As far as I know anyone can add this notice. I didn't know of any abuse of this in my whole history of editing in WP:ARBPIA.--Shrike (talk) 18:37, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• As I wrote at DGG's talk page, I think the snow close was unfortunate; while the discussion leaned Keep, the notability question is complex, sensitive and in my opinion not clear-cut. The article's topic is an Arabic phrase that basically says that when Muslims are finished persecuting Jews, they will take on the Christians. If said by Christians, it will reflect anxiety or prejudices; if said by Muslims it becomes a very hateful expression that can be interpreted as calling for genocide. It's the last version (by Muslims) that makes the topic very sensitive, as it naturally can be a beloved quote for people with an Anti-Islam agenda: for instance one of the current sources in the article is Bat Ye'or. Some of the other sources are mentions in passing by political commentarors, not the kind of sources that give a clear-cut notability for a stand-alone article. I was in the thinking box myself about whether and how to "vote"; also because the article hasn't yet found a clear form, I believe the notability question here merits careful considerations rather than a speedy close. While it's not a direct or good parallell, the topic may raise some of the same concerns as the "Jews and Communism" topic. The debate in the AfD was heated and some of it may have been out of line, but much of it was rooted in sincere concerns; not meaningless tit-for-tat bickering. It's also worth to take into considerations that Arabs and Arab-speaking people, who may have particular knowledge about the topic, are not very well represented at Misplaced Pages, so there should be some time for those who are here to give their voices if they want. Iselilja (talk) 18:44, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• Having seen some of the racist rhetoric at the AfD, I am entirely sympathetic to DGG's desire to cool things down before blocks were necessary. That said, I think the AfD should be reopened, as there were also good-faith source- and policy-based discussions going on that were not really resolved. If people continue to attack other editors based on their perceived or actual religious or ethnic affiliations, then discretionary sanctions can and should be applied. Prior to reopening the discussion it would be a good idea to remind some of the participants not to engage in that sort of thing. 28bytes (talk) 19:59, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
  • The problem is that AfDs/RFCs etc in this topic area tend to attract the same involved battleground editors, whose !vote I could predict with my eyes closed. The WP:RM at Talk:1834 Safed pogrom is another example. This one has not yet attracted the entire crowd, and discounting the regulars, there was only one editor in favour of deletion and six in favour of keeping. I can't really see it going any other way, particularly with the huge improvement in the article since the AfD started.
  • I suggested ages ago creating a special type of discussion for this sort of topic area (Macedonia would probably be another one) to prevent those editors appearing with their entirely predictable views and the discussion ending up going the way of whichever side happens to have the most editors at the time. Maybe it's time to revisit that. Number 57 21:02, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

There was one upset Arabic-speaker, somewhat understandably given the topic, but bad manners are unacceptable, and ethnic mud-slinging inexcusable. He was notified, and modified his tone, and just desisted. As to 'involved battleground editors', whose votes you could predict with your eyes closed, part of 'the entire crowd', is that an attack on someone's good faith? If you mean myself, as an editor or two off-line who disagree with me know, I was in two minds. I only voted 'No' in the end on observing 'Keep' votes by editors whose judgement seemed to be swayed by some obsession with Hamas, which has zero connection with this phrase.

What you call a huge improvement consists of

• (a) not correcting the Arabic in the lead: the only source for the phrase does not provide the lead version.
• (b) not correcting the patently solecistic grammar of 'predominantly used among or against Arab Christians fearing or threatening them that they will share the fate of Jews in Arab and Muslim countries', though it stands out like dogs' balls. I left it there to see if anyone among those rushing to judgement was actually reading the page attentively. No. An obvious blooper remains at the very top of the page.
• (c)In adding

'In 1940, Walter Clay Lowdermilk noted the alleged proverb in a rather critical review of the White Paper of 1939. He assumed, that similar to the Assyrian genocide of mostly Christian Assyrians in Iraq after the British left the former mandate and their loyal native troops behind, the Jews in the then Palestine Mandate region 'would be massacred' similarly by Muslims, if left as a minority.

the editor just copied the source and made the links to Lowdermilk's terms without even realizing what he or she was doing. The Assyrian Genocide refers to events from over three to 2 decades before the British Mandate in Iraq expired, indeed before the British Mandate itself, and was committed by Turks, not Iraqi Muslims. Lowdermilk's statistics of 80,000 dead cannot refer to any event in the otherwise tragic episodes that struck villages in Northern Iraq in 1933, in a clash of many ethnic and religious groups. The conservative estimate for 1933 was 600 (British figure) to 3,000 (Iraqi/Assyrian estimate).

The whole voting process took place without anyone bothering to check, source by source, the content against the source language, or correcting the numerous errors. That is rather unusual in my experience, because 'voting' without even trying to examine how a contested article is constructed, is not evidence of any concern for wikipedia's required standards of editorial control. I don't know if it makes any difference to things, to reopen the AfD. Perhaps my tolerance of cantankerousness is high, but as the I/P area goes, it was manageable. Nishidani (talk) 22:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• I did not vote in the AfD. I was not even aware of this discussion, since I don't check AfDs. And also I am sure some people can probably say that I am a dedicated POV warrior. When Number 57 says that he can predict the !vote with his eyes closed, that is true of course. But there is an unstated implication there, with a false balance. As anyone who has read the article can see, it is pure WP:COATRACK, with a not-subtle message of attacking Hamas. Why does one want to make up stuff to attack them, when they are already so bad? The majority of so-called references to this article are totally passing mentions. I picked one at random: "It is one of the reasons Christian Palestinians increasingly ask for a double nationality and apply as well for Israeli citizenship," the sentence is "from time to time the slogan "After Saturday comes Sunday" is heard, meaning that having dealt with the Jews, the Christians' turn will come next". That is the beginning and the end. Are we going to devote an article to the slogan "Death to Arabs" now? Kingsindian ♝♚ 23:02, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I think there would be justification in having a "Death to the Arabs" article, but more from the point of view that it's a common football chant from Beitar Jerusalem fans (there are numerous articles on football chants – see Category:Football songs and chants). However, the way in which the suggestion was raised (i.e. as a tit-for-tat measure) is a classic example of everything that is wrong with this area of Misplaced Pages. Number 57 11:20, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I did not raise this suggestion as a "tit-for-tat measure", but as an example of Reductio ad absurdum. Apparently, in this area one has to state the obvious, so let me say it. I have no interest in writing any "Death to Arabs" article. But, with the logic being presented here, one can easily do it. Search Google Scholar for "Death to Arabs", pick a few references, add a section "Role in the changing Israeli community", add a quote from some marginal group inside Israel, and you get an analogous article. The fact that people agree with my absurd proposal baffles me. I am willing to bet nobody who voted !keep in the article is going to start a "Death to Arabs" article. Please wake me up when that happens. Kingsindian ♝♚ 12:36, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

'as a tit-for-tat measure) is a classic example of everything that is wrong with this area of Misplaced Pages.'

I dislike these untimely insinuations. DGG need only glance at my email to him on 23 August 2012 to recall how much I deplore, with concrete examples, the creation of provocative articles that, for NPOV balance, tempt other editors to mimic the same ethnic-suffering-articles for the other side (tit-for-tat), and the kind of voting en bloc without reasoned arguments practiced in Afds. I even experimented with writing an article to see how votes would go if if was, as I expected, Afd'd. Editors were creating killing of settlers articles one after another, or supporting them in Afds, while challenging similar articles (not written by me) on killings of Palestinians. It didn't work, because no one challenged its appropriateness.Nishidani (talk) 13:22, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not an insinuation, it's a fact. After reading Kingsindian's comments, I was going to respond by saying that this used to be exemplified by editors creating articles on every single victim of the conflict, with subsequent AfDs seeing pro-Israeli editors !voting to keep Israeli victims and delete Palestinian victims, and vice versa, but it seems you got there first (although failing to mention the vice versa bit). I got so pissed off with this behaviour that I created a bundled nomination with victims from both sides, but I vaguely recall that it led to editors simply splitting their !vote depending on the side of the victim... Number 57 13:40, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

There is no vice-versa logic operant that I can recall. Victim articles have been overwhelmingly created concerning Israelis/Jews, as are rocket articles (vs the undocumenteed missile/bombing strikes). I tried publicly to stop the abuse and on more than one occasion advised editors generally with a 'Palestinian concern' not to imitate the habit. Correct me if I am wrong, but the problem was with one POV on this topic. Category:Terrorism deaths in Jerusalem; Category:Terrorism deaths in the West Bank;Category:Israeli terrorism victims yield, sieving out overlaps, about 35 examples (excluding several not tagged with those cats) vs.Muhammed al-Dura,Faris Odeh,Khalil al-Mughrabi,Iman Darweesh Al Hams; Khalil al-Mughrabi,Mohammed Abu Khdeir, Beitunia killings (6 articles, all because the events were photographed, or lead to court trials, or, as is rarely the case, the object of scandal). Note that the Palestinian cases are so few (despite a far higher killing toll) that we have no cats for them. One must 'always connect' but 'always discriminate', otherwise judgement just obscures all by 'a curse on both their houses' /re editors)Nishidani (talk) 15:09, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• Uphold close. I don't participate in this area of conflict but I saw the AfD and I found good quality sources discussing the topic. To me that makes for a very simple answer at AfD: "Keep" per WP:GNG. There is certainly a topic here, so the AfD was closed correctly. The question of how to shape the article content will always be up for discussion, but DGG saw the simple AfD answer was already determined, and thus closed the AfD, rightly balancing the various arguments in the process. Binksternet (talk) 23:14, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
• Uphold close. DGG IAR close invoked as well WP Snowball, rightly so, as the article was beyond deletion then. I dont see any attack against Hamas, but a sort of differentiated perspective on the role of the quote in general and the islamization of the Palestinian movement, which had been open for arab christians in the past but tend to close the doors in the meanwhile. Serten (talk) 05:29, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Your comment proves my point. The article is not about the slogan but about Islamization of Palestinian political life. Ask any uninvolved editor to read the article and see what he comes away with. The whole last section "Role in the changing Palestinian community" drives home the point, not-so-subtly. It even contains a long quote by PFLP denouncing Hamas. PFLP is a virtually defunct organization and should have been dissolved years ago (after Habash retired). As I said, would you support an article on the slogan "Death to Arabs"? I can assure you that is a much more widely spoken slogan than this ridiculous phrase. Ugly things exist in all societies. To make WP:COATRACK articles out of them is quite a different matter. Kingsindian ♝♚ 05:48, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

George Habash came out of the Christian minority and the PLPF quote contains the sentence How can such mottos serve the Palestinian struggle?. If you have any source based content on "Death to Arabs", add it to the origin, as it mirrors The Sword Verse. Serten (talk) 11:10, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

We have one scholarly article on the phrase. As I said earlier, I would support retention of the article were it possible to supply information that clarifies the history of that phrase, and the preemptive closing of this AfD has more or less absolved editors of their obligations to fix the article to justify its retention. A few tweaks have been made, but (a) Lowdermilk's ludicrous error of gross historical confusion still stands, and it can't be fixed because to note that he has screwed up his history would be original research. As a result, the article, lacking RS, must use a source just for this phrase that will ineludibly disinform all readers: (b) despite the fact that the phrase is attested all over the Arab world, the article focuses on a "case against the Palestinians" (for whom there is no evidence of acting on the slogan's apocalyptic message), by showcasing one comment from a nigh moribund communist fraction critical of Hamas:(c) as typified by the Israel Amrani interview, it appears to pop up as an intrusive editorial gloss to cast an ominous light, when nothing in the interview otherwise refers to it (many cases exist of its use in this way). One can't note this (WP:OR) simply because we have no metacritique by scholars of the phrase itself, something I think requisite if articles of this kind are not to become playpens for skewering groups, societies, and countries, by innuendo as editors coatrack it with generic examples of reported use (on walls here, lampposts there). In encyclopedic terms, you do need serious sourcing that analyses a phenomenon, linguistically, sociologically, historically to avoid the temptation, so often suffered in this area, of playing politics. It is tempting for unwise editors keen to shortcircuit history by spinning the horrendous violence wrought on numerous ethnic communities (Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Yazidi etc.) over the last century in the Middle East as due to what is a relatively recent trend, Islamic fundamentalism, when that trend itself is a consequence of repeated Western meddling (it was the foreseen consequence of the Iraq invasion of 2003), and, while I am rigorously opposed to anything that smacks of political correctness, a global encyclopedia should exercise care and discretion in what it will tolerate from editors who cannot distinguish preaching a cause via article creation of this kind, and the neutral description of events, problems and even usage. That is why I insist that sensitive articles use scholarly sources, not newspapers, optimally, and that articles that cannot draw on the sober analyses of scholars from th outset should be reviewed with caution. In these cases, one needs wide input from disinterested outside editors and administrators and a due period of reflection to ensure that all angles are covered in deciding what we should have.Nishidani (talk) 11:05, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Goodness, if WP should consist of featured articles only, then go ahead. If you have a problem with linkings, mention them on the talk page. I assume Lowdermilk ment it exactly is it has been worded. Serten (talk) 11:10, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Reply to this: has Lowdermilk confused the events of 1894/1915-17 with the events of 1933 or not? I've given the evidence for this absurd confusion. If I am wrong correct me (2) If I am not wrong, and you support the retention of the article with a patent piece of anhistorical nonsense in it, what are your suggestions for retaining Lowdermilk,in such a way that his disinformation does not seed its way into our article and lead a global readership to think that 80,000 Christians were killed in 1933 and that a soil conservationist authoritatively predicted on the basis of that non-fact that a similar genocide would befall the Jews in Palestine in 1948 (nothing of the sort occurred of course)?Nishidani (talk) 11:27, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Do I have to care? On the talk page, some guy still claims the saying is a Jewish invention, while Lowdermilk described it already in 1940. Serten (talk) 13:27, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I think so. You supported the retention of an article. (b) you personally added a source and the content. I pointed out here (see above) that your edit is sheer nonsense, in the sense that you paraphrase Lowdermilk's egregious confusion of two distinct eras, giving the impression what he stated was true, whereas it is a non-fact, a huge blunder. I asked you here what should be done, and you answer:'who cares'. If you don't care about historical accuracy, that's fine. You can stay away from articles. But editors should, in general, feel responsible for the accuracy of the articles they edit, and esp. for fixing the problems their editing creates. So be so kind as to fix it. 'It's your baby', and I for one am tired of baby-sitting.Nishidani (talk) 15:23, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Since my reductio ad absurdum obviously didn't work, let me take a truly absurd example: Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Pizza_cheese. Note how many comments emphasized that passing mentions of "pizza cheese" were not enough. It took some real unearthing by Northamerica1000 to get articles directly addressing the topic at hand, and even this was finally contentious. I can assure you that "pizza cheese" is more notable than this stupid phrase. This is my last comment. Kingsindian ♝♚ 13:35, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, if its your last comment and the other guy stopped babysitting, can we close? Serten (talk) 15:42, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

No. Please undo the damage to wikipedia's reliability caused by your edit. To close this off, as you defy a request that you assume responsibility for the mess you created on this article, would not be good form. You made the mess, the article passed, so fix the mess at least.Nishidani (talk) 16:03, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• Endorse closure That discussion was a mess, and a good deal of the opinions provided are not relevant to the point of the AfD, I can see that letting that run further and firefighting all the crap in the article might have resulted in a no consensus down the road, or a keep, but not a delete. I am not suggesting that a proper discussion couldn't have come to a delete conclusion, I don't really have an opinion on that, but I am suggesting that this one never would. Leaving the AfD open would, in the end, change nothing as to the retention of the article, and prolong the drama. A bold and sensible use of IAR. ObDisclosure: As near as I can recall, I've never edited on this or related topics. --j⚛e decker 15:42, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
• Comment Sorry, I cannot resist a final comment. Since my earlier comments were directed more at the merits of the AfD rather than the merits of the IAR/Snow Keep close, I will address the latter. Firstly, WP:SNOW does not apply here, because clearly there were multiple people proposing deletion, or at least significant change in the article. WP:SNOW is not a synonym for "it will likely end up as no consensus or keep". Secondly, WP:IAR does not apply. It is hard to argue against WP:IAR but I will try. This will necessarily get a bit meta and WP:SOAPBOXy.

There was one very passionate person who was arguing against, and multiple less intemperate, but no less firmly opposed people. The person (%D8%B9%D9%85%D8%B1%D9%88_%D8%A8%D9%86_%D9%83%D9%84%D8%AB%D9%88%D9%85) was mostly arguing on the merits, though some of the comments came across as anti-Jewish. However, he recognized this and clarified his remarks to Dougweller and Nishidani. People may or may not accept his clarification, that is not relevant here. I will remind people that this is not the "Western Misplaced Pages". "Zionist" is routinely used in the Arab world (and for that matter the non-Arab world) to refer to Israel. The user was making some valid observations, though some of the comments tended towards battleground behaviour. As anyone who edits in this area knows, it is very hard to avoid the latter, though one must always strive to avoid it. Kingsindian ♝♚ 14:07, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Technical help

Can someone help @Doc9871: with the MfD he tried to file: here, here and here. It looks like he was trying to file a new MfD where old ones had existed, but didn't do it right, and also didn't list it. It's been many years since I've done this myself, or I'd just do it, but I'm afraid I'd muck it up too. Without comment one way or the other as to the merits of the nomination, it should at least be listed correctly. Can someone help him complete the process? Thanks! --Jayron32 11:40, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I was about to jump in and help, and then saw what page he has trying to MfD. WP:POINT might be a better page to direct him to. In general folks should only nominate things for deletion they actually want deleted. If he's sincere, I'd recommend he simply undo his edits and use WP:TWINKLE to start the MfD: doing it manually can be quite error-prone. 28bytes (talk) 12:06, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I've fixed it - it's now at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Long-term abuse (2nd nomination). — Mr. Stradivarius 14:26, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

RFC/N closure

Can someone pls close and archive this RFC Thanx, Mlpearc (open channel) 20:38, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done. De728631 (talk) 20:53, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Mlpearc (open channel) 23:59, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

SPI backlog

I know that many admins hesitate to get involved at WP:SPI, however there are only 4 open cases where checkuser has been requested. The remaining 65 (+/-) open cases only require review from any admin with the time and inclination to review the evidence. --Jezebel'sPonyo 22:34, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Guías Amarillas

Hi, can somebody please speedy delete Guías Amarillas? It's scam. Some non-admin is reverting my speedy nomination. I'm a member of the info-es OTRS team, where we received a complaint about this article. As far as I can see the sender is right and this is indeed a scam company with a fake phone directory. Jcb (talk) 22:36, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I deleted it.

This site is not in English, but if I am reading the translated version correctly, it is confirmation that the company is running a scam.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:14, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I see that you also identified other sites indicating that it is a scam.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:16, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm also an OTRS agent, but I formed my opinion and deleted the article before reviewing the OTRS ticket. I have now reviewed the OTRS ticket, which provides some links to evidence that it is a scam, including one I independently found.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:22, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Suggesting eyes on two articles

About twenty minutes ago, there was a heavy crash at the Formula One Japanese Grand Prix, involving driver Jules Bianchi and a crane. The latest official word is that Bianchi has been taken to a local hospital, unconscious, and things are looking grim overall. We might want to get some admin eyes on those two articles for the next day or so, just to make sure that we don't get any troll-type vandalism going on. rdfox 76 (talk) 08:24, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Second that, although the regular F1 editors will doubtless be their usual vigilant selves. Also keep an eye on Marussia F1, Bianchi's team. A couple of years ago another of their drivers, Maria de Villota, suffered a serious injury in a crash, which arguably contributed to her death last year, so there may be activity related to that. Bretonbanquet (talk) 08:30, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Also please keep an eye on Talk:Jules Bianchi; we've already had a vandal claim Bianchi has died, and amazingly, an editor who restored that vandalism twice, while deleting another editor's comments. Bretonbanquet (talk) 09:44, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

IP on a weird punctuation campaign

68.98.155.114 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been engaged in a number of style edits on numerous articles going back since August, mostly changing straight-line quote marks ' and '' into ‘,’,“,”. He's broken some blue-links along the way. He also has applied his own idiosyncratic capitalization changes, changing things like "White House Chief of Staff" to "White House chief of staff". There have been a few good edits along the way. I left a message on his talk page.

I reverted a few of the most recent, then saw he has been at it for some time now. Here's one example diff combining his personal rules of capitalization and quote marks, and breaking a blue-link to boot.

To be honest, I have no idea where to report this. Choor monster (talk) 18:46, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Attention admins - please stop this immediately. I'm familiar with the underlying subtext of these specific kind-of punctuation edits. It has to do with a punctuation conspiracy theory (seriously, that's a real thing) orchestrated by David Wynn Miller and is not - as might otherwise be presumed by a person unaware - anything related to an ESL editor. I strongly recommend IP editor by indefinitely blocked. DocumentError (talk) 21:34, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

RfC Shopping

A RfC created specifically due to a conflict over whether to include Syrian forces in the article 2014 military intervention against ISIS - but framed to finalize debate on inclusion of all non-USA forces - was opened here. The RfC is currently active and trending 50/50 split between support and oppose. One of the opponents of including the Syrian Arab Army in this article has initiated a new RfC on the same subject, differentiated only by its wording. I attempted to GF shutter this RfC, politely noting to him one was already open . He reverted my close with the explanation "That RfC addresses all non-us allied forces being included. This is only on Syria" a splitting of hairs that rejects the entire premise for the first RfC (wikilawyering on the nuances of the wording) and is seemingly designed for no purpose than to take another stab at getting Syria P(OV)ushed out of this article. Requested Action: Uninvolved admin close this RfC just so the original one can continue to a conclusion and avoid the necessity of re-gathering everyone who !voted in the first one to !vote again in the second (third, fourth, etc.). DocumentError (talk) 21:09, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Note - as a courtesy I have attempted to notify all editors who !voted in the first RfC about this situation. DocumentError (talk) 21:12, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I am not RfC shopping, I am trying to get some comment's on specifically the Syrian forces inclusion. The previous RfC which they are referencing was for "Should the article titled "2014 military intervention against ISIS" contain information about all nations and nation-equivalent actors involved in 2014 military actions against ISIS or should it only include nations whose military forces are operating under U.S. command, or have been declared allies of the U.S. regime?" It was not for specifically the Syrian inclusion which itself is an important issue. It was whether any non-us allied forces should be included. That group of non-us forces did technically include Syria but it also included Iran and others. This is specifically on the Syrian regime inclusion which again is a separate issue than Iran who are intervening. I just wanted to get some commentary on Syria specifically. I am not trying to game the system. - SantiLak (talk) 21:19, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

The fact you registered a !vote in the first RfC that said specifically "The Syrian regime forces should not be included in the article." indicates you are absolutely aware of the premise behind the first RfC, which was started specifically due to controversy over the inclusion of Syria. DocumentError (talk) 21:26, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I was opposing the inclusion of the Syrian regime forces in the article there but specified syria to make sure that it was clear that I did not oppose other actors such as Iran from being included. It was started over Syria but the RfC covered all of the countries not under US command as was specified in the question. I see you have removed the canvassing accusations and I appreciate that as I was in no way canvassing, just informing members of original RfC who were not informed of ANI. - SantiLak (talk) 21:29, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps we can make one big RFC so that we can settle this matter instead of making five RFCs at once. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:32, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

What he said. :) DocumentError (talk) 21:35, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

After all the different duplicate processes DocumentError started that lead to this ANi, and now this one on top, I can't believe he has the kahonnas to start this complaint. Legacypac (talk) 21:38, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

The only reason I made the RfC was that I wanted to solely address the Syria issue instead of having a broad scope RfC so the question behind it includes all non-us allied countries, to just include Syria. I just want to get comments on specifically Syria, I'm not trying to game the system. - SantiLak (talk) 21:40, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Trying to use an ANI you yourself started and that was rejected by the community as frivolous and disruptive, as some kind-of scarlet letter, is probably not something you want to make a habit of doing. Just a friendly tip. DocumentError (talk) 21:42, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Administrative backlog