Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by NuclearWarfare (talk | contribs) at 03:24, 18 March 2010. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

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

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

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

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

Template:Active editnotice

Proposed interaction ban between SkagitRiverQueen and Wildhartlivie

Since it does not appear that SkagitRiverQueen (talk · contribs) and Wildhartlivie (talk · contribs) are able to communicate without things spinning out of control, as shown most recently here, I'd like to propose an interaction ban, where neither of them is allowed to comment to or about the other, short of an RFC/U or Arbitration case. Further thoughts? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support I also agree with this as long as RFC/U or arbcom is still allowed to be pursued. The problems have been going on way too long. While we are at it, I would also like to request that this be removed. Thanks for making this suggestion to get it official. --CrohnieGal 15:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support, definitely warranted and perhaps overdue. Equazcion 16:17, 14 Mar 2010 (UTC)

• Conditional Support - I'm essentially fine with an interaction ban because I'm tired of everything I do and everything I say being construed by Wildhartlivie as being about her and against her and some kind of planned plot to make her Misplaced Pages-life miserable (even when I've never said a word about her). I'm tired of the backstabbing that goes on between her and her closest Misplaced Pages-buddies. That being said, I would like to see a "clause" in the ban to include a few editors who I have seen make snide, behind the back remarks about me to WHL in order to make a point and show some kind of childish anti-SkagitRiverQueen comraderie. These editors would include User:Doc9871, User:Crohnie, User:Vidor, User:Equazcion, and User:Pinkadelica. I'm not asking for a formal interaction ban, just something that keeps them from egging things on and adding fuel to anyone's fire. IOW, once this is done, I would like to see it over with. I don't want to see clever, coded, or middle-school-type comments on article talk pages or WHL's talk page or in edit summaries that have anything to do with past history between WHL and I. IMO, comments from these people in the past have only made matters worse (for both WHL and I) and have been unhelpful and unproductive in general. I'm not asking for an interaction ban (formal or informal) between them and I, but I am asking that once this is done, that they let everything between WHL and I go and move on. If they want to kibbutz and backbite through email, fine. But if they plan on carrying this on publically in the manner they have in the past, I say no - put a stop to it now. One last thing...I am not okay with this ban if it means I will have to stop editing articles that WHL does. She edits too many of the same articles I care about and, with her editing thousands of articles (and likely having many of the same ones on her watchlist that I do), she and I are bound to bump into each other at some point. Asking me to stop editing the articles WHL does would be unfair - the deck would be already stacked in her favor. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 16:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• I am not interested in interacting with SRQ or talking about her except in the context of her edits to articles, which, in the case of the Bundy article I interacted with her on, were generally her holding on to a solitary point of view long after a consensus developed against her edits. Vidor (talk) 18:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• Question How far does an "interaction" ban go? If the two editors revise each others' edits, does that count as "interaction", or does it depend on whether it's normal editing or edit-warring? CoM and I were interaction-banned, but the article question never needed resolution, since we had very little crossover on articles. But how would it work if both are editing the same articles frequently? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support. I was quite happy during the period of time that Lar imposed an informal interaction ban, except, perhaps for the multiple times SkagitRiverQueen violated that ban and nothing was done about it. Just for the record, I have approached or emailed 6 different administrators and some posts to WP:AN/I, who either ignored my requests or said they would help amd did nothing, save SarekOfVulcan, who proposed this ban. In that regard, this is the first constructive thing that any administrators have done since Lar imposed the informal ban, to help the situation, although no one would take any action when it was violated. Having said that, I want to stress that I do not support a ban on filing a WP:RfC/U, WP:AN/I, WP:AN, or ArbCom case regarding SRQ. That is basically jerking my dispute resolution remedies away from me. I also do not support any sort of ban extending to other editors. SRQ was blocked recently for personal attacks or harassment against Crohnie, who is one of her cherrypicked list of editors she wants to drag into this. There is no support for extending this to User:Doc9871, User:Crohnie, User:Vidor, User:Equazcion, and User:Pinkadelica. Including Doc9871 and Equazcion who challenge her behaviors toward other editors, not just me, would effectively remove vocal editors who do not condone her behavior. I have no clue why she would single out Vidor who stays out of it, and including Crohnie, whom she harasses about her friendship with me, and Pinkadelica is totally unsupported. That list is effectively her clearing a path in front of her and is unfounded and unsupported. She basically picked a list of names, all apparently who have been critical of her conduct and this is an attempt to get rid of her opponents, none of which have ever been chastized or blocked for thier conduct toward her. I suggest if she has individual complaints about those editors, that she address each specifically, and not try to drag them into this. As for her statement that she not be banned from articles where she has an "interest", I have a list of 26 articles, to which she followed after her initial dispute with me in December, none of which she had ever shown even a modicum of interest prior to that. The most recent article was last night, where she reverted an edit on her first visit to the article Herculaneum], an article where I first edited on May 29, 2008, and her first was March 13, 2010, my last edit there was March 12, 2010. This history of stalking my edits is completely unacceptable and totally improper. That would include her futile attempt to "insert" herself into a discussion with another editor on an article (Kate Winslet) that I had just taken through WP:GA nomination, and which Lar questioned her motives. It isn't acceptable to stalk another editor to not one or two, but at least 26 different articles upon several of which she stirred the waters and escalated a dispute. How easy is it to follow someone else's edits and appear to edit and dispute? That is clearly what she has done and to reserve her right to edit those articles and talk pages where she has instigated issues is blatantly self-serving and contentious. Each new article where she pops up would become another article upon which I cannot protest her taking over and "helping" the page. Please take a look at her contributions history to see the pattern of disputes in which she is involved. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support. I've seen this clogging up several dispute resolution boards and talk pages for the last few months. Enough is enough. Either stop mentioning each other, or get banned. --Rschen7754 20:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
• Strong support: This is becoming very disruptive. I'm glad an admin has finally initiated a response to this escalating disaster. Long overdue and much needed. —Mike Allen 20:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Support - Both sides have agreed, this seems like a good way to end some of the drama. I would not extend the ban to any of the other editors SRQ has named unless either they're willing, or she's willing to file RfCs and provide diffs. Dayewalker (talk) 21:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• Strong Support As is evidenced within this very section, this is needed so the accusations and counter accusations can be put to rest. I would address both SRQ and W now; very few people now care who is right and who is wrong - if you will not comply with this proposal then both will be banned, and editors can get on with other issues. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• A damn fine idea which will save a lot of people a lot of time and effort.   pablo_hablo. 23:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
• Note: An irrelevant exchange was moved to the talk page. Equazcion 00:36, 15 Mar 2010 (UTC)

And it needs to be returned immediately - because others are continuing it here with my prior comments now located somewhere else. Not fair. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 02:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Either that or move the continuation there too, which I've done. Equazcion 02:12, 15 Mar 2010 (UTC)

(OD) As above, I think this ban is a good idea, and the above discussion illustrates that. Can an admin go ahead and wrap this one up, since both parties have agreed in principle to it? Dayewalker (talk) 00:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Preferably, an admin-not-being-me, since I proposed it in the first place. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

(OD) As a general notice to everyone involved, Equazcion has moved all of the infighting and personal discussion to the talk page. Any further comments about anything other than the topic ban should be taken there. Trust me when I say this, no one is listening to any of you right now. This isn't the time or place for a discussion and details about who did what to whom. Please take it to the talk page, or better yet, just table the matter until the ban is in place and it may not even be relevant any more. Dayewalker (talk) 02:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

It is entirely relevant to a ban as to whether I am able to file a report here, at WP:RfC/U or an ArbCom case and whether SRQ can continue to stalk my editing and stir up trouble to which I am not allowed to respond. Will someone please address these concerns and not remove my questions, please. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

A message was left on Sarek's page, to request that he clarify the terms of the proposed ban. Let's see what he has to say on that. Equazcion 03:19, 15 Mar 2010 (UTC)

Given some of the recent comments here, I've gone ahead and logged the interaction ban at WP:RESTRICT. It's essentially the TheSerialComma/Koalorka ban with added language reserving the right to file and participate in RFC/U and arbitration discussions. The noticeboards are specifically prohibited.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Motions regarding Trusilver and Arbitration Enforcement

Per motions at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case:

1) The unblock of User:Brews ohare by User:Trusilver was done without the explicit written consent of the Arbitration Committee, or a full and active community discussion as required. The Arbitration Committee explicitly rejects Trusilver's defense of WP:IAR in this situation. However, since the block has since expired, it will not be reapplied. For misuse of his administrator tools, User:Trusilver's administrator rights are revoked. He may regain them through a new WP:RfA or through a request to the Arbitration Committee.

2) The Arbitration Committee modifies the Restriction on arbitration enforcement activity as follows:

Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except:

(a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or

(b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page.

Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee.

Administrators who consistently make questionable enforcement administrative actions, or whose actions are consistently overturned by community or Arbitration Committee discussions may be asked to cease performing such activities or be formally restricted from taking such activities.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 03:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

Since this decision is so important for Admins, I think all Admins should be notified by email about this. Count Iblis (talk) 14:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

If admins can't or won't keep up with Misplaced Pages:AN#Motions_regarding_Trusilver_and_Arbitration_Enforcement, they should be desysoped, not coddled. Hipocrite (talk) 15:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

This resolution on prohibition of overturning is long on brutal enforcement, and very short on any explanation about arbitration of a proposed overturn. The emphasis upon forced support for an action instead of reasoned arbitration of a considered overturn is poor practice. Brews ohare (talk) 15:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

A bit of an explanation on this issue (without taking sides in the case):

Arbitration is the final resort on dispute resolution (Jimbo Wales almost never changes rulings). RFAR is intended to end the conduct issues in a dispute. Cases come to RFAR because neither the community can resolve them, nor the admin team. Sometimes matters get to RFAR because admins are unilaterally acting to overturn each other already. Allowing RFAR overturns as a norm would allow the same kind of actions that prevented dispute resolution in the first place, and changes AC rulings from a final resort into a mere loop-around into the same old mêlée. Given the effort everyone goes to to get a matter resolved, and fails before hitting RFAR, that's very rarely a good idea. If overturning AE were something any admin might to do freely, then the entire wishes of those seeking Arbcom's help to end a dispute, and the entire structure of dispute resolution that says we aim to end disputes not enact them perennially, would fail.

AE back-stops the entire of dispute resolution, and cases reaching AE have inevitably already had wikilawyering, gaming and attempts at unilateral action. So AE is itself backstopped with rigid measures. Administrators may respect AC rulings or let others deal with them, but they should not disrupt them. The method of review is by proper conduct not unilateral decision: review by Arbcom, or a very clear, cogent, consensus, for those reasons. FT2  21:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Likewise I have no opinion on the original issue, but I welcome the strong action by arbcom which is fully justified from the simple observation that there has to be an ultimate appeal process that must be respected (the alternative would be to replace the encyclopedia with an open-door forum). If admin X claims to be acting for AE and admin Y disagrees, Y must take up the matter with arbcom or the community, rather than contributing another chapter to the original dispute. Johnuniq (talk) 23:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Using terms like "brutal" is profoundly unhelpful. If you would like to propose an alternative to the arbitration committee as a way of finally settling tenacious disputed then you are free to do so, in the mean time it's all we have and the process must be respected. I note that you have (at last) made the proper request n the proper fashion for removal of the topic ban extension. Hopefully this time your fanclub will not take the opportunity to try to refight the arbitration and will instead focus on the specific issue. Guy (Help!) 09:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Category:Unreferenced BLPs

When this whole hoopla started, I didn't say a great deal. I figured everyone was too worked up to really listen anyways. I imagined that once everyone got into the category, got their hands dirty so to speak, they would realize what I had understood solely due to my experience wading through these backlogs: That the articles in this category are by and large innocuous. That everyone would come to understand that this category is not helping them find the problematic articles on living people that they initially believed it would and that everyone would move on to the real priorities. That didn't happen. Groupthink seems to have painted some irresistible illusion where this category is seen as the "must address" backlog for enforcing the policy on problematic articles about living people. This impression, however, is false. The fact is that the above category contains articles on living people which may or may not be accurate, which may or may not be neutral, yet have merely been tagged as lacking sources. I do understand why people are uneasy about this category being as old as it is. I do not understand why people prioritize it over the really problematic categories which have a similar age. I for one imagine that the priority would naturally fall on articles which are tagged as lacking accuracy or lacking neutrality rather than lacking sources. That the articles which may or may not be accurate or neutral would be dealt with after those which have been identified as inaccurate or non-neutral. We have amazing work being done on Category:Unreferenced BLPs. Yet people are threatening the work being done these with dis-heartening out-of-process deletions in the name of "prioritizing the BLP policy". The idea that Category:Unreferenced BLPs has anything to do "prioritizing the BLP policy" is utter hogwash. Prioritizing the BLP policy would mean addressing articles which may or may not contain sources, which may or may not be accurate, but are identified as lacking neutrality or else articles which may or may not contain sources, which may or may not be neutral, but are identified as lacking accuracy. Since these categories are not sorted by living people, I have made a partial list on a subpage of articles on living people I found within these categories. I only sorted out those backlogged from before March 2008, so remember there is another two years worth of backlog where these came from. If anyone foolishly pushes ahead with deleting those non-contentious articles in Category:Unreferenced BLPs outside of process while these contentious articles on living people are still sitting unresolved after years and years, I will personally dispute the deletions. If anyone wants to continue to hold the moral high ground, it stands over with the identified contentious articles. Once they are taken care of I will concede the the priority must then fall to those that are merely unsourced and I will not dispute such steps taken to deal with them at that time.--BirgitteSB 07:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Just like I created the Unsourced BLP cat as a subcat of the (extremely large) unsourced articles cat, I am willing to create and populate BLPsubcats for other tag categories as well (well, those requiring more attention for BLPs than for other kinds of articles, not things like "wikify" or "orphan"). Fram (talk) 10:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I would support the creation of more specific categories to be used to sort articles according to more precise issues (and more important ones, too) as described by BirgitteSB. I think it's far more important to deal with articles that actually have urgent and important issues such as POV, accuracy, etc., than to spend so much time hand-wringing over articles which are basically innocuous but which happen to have no sources for the innocuous information in them. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

There are articles that are known or at least thought to have actual problems in terms of NPOV or other BLP provisions, and also those that only might possibly have such problems, but have never really been examined. The first group must get the priority. The articles requiring priority for consideration are those that either are widely seen, or are known to have the most serious problems. There is a difference between unsourced negative statements, and unsourced statements that someone might conceivably claim to be negative, but which nobody has. Of course we should look at them all. Of course we should have seen to the sourcing problem much earlier. But the worst dirt --especially the most dangerous dirt--is what gets the first cleanup. Why dust the hidden corners first, when there's filth lying right in plain view? DGG ( talk ) 01:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• This tool, when used with Category:All XYZ and Category:Living people can be quite handy to find the problematic articles. NW (Talk) 01:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Why have I never heard of that too before? That is just brilliant.--BirgitteSB 17:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Brews ohare's topic ban appeal

Note: Moved from WP:ANI. –MuZemike 03:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Appealing user

– Brews ohare (talk) 19:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Sanction being appealed

Tznkai's extension of Speed of Light sanctions as stated below:

• Brews ohare is indefinitely restricted from editing Misplaced Pages and Misplaced Pages talk namespaces. (Exceptions listed below) Brews ohare is restricted from editing any namespaces to begin, or comment on physics related content, disputes stemming from physics-related content, meta-discussion or meta-content (policy, guidelines, essays, polls, RfCs and the like) concerning the editing of scientific topics in general, or physics in particular, or the recognition of minority views. As always, there a recognized exception for Arbitration proceedings concerning the Brews ohare (up to the discretion of the Arbitration Committee and appropriate clerks), as well as as the natural exception for responding to administrative threads seeking to sanction Brews ohare, as well as participating in Arbitration related elections and election discussions. This sanction will be reviewed in two weeks.--Tznkai (talk) 06:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
• Above ban reviewed and continued, available for another review four weeks after 10 December 2009. Discussion archived atMisplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive52#Brews_ohare_restriction_review.--Tznkai (talk) 20:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Editor who imposed the sanction (consensus not required, nor obtained)

Tznkai (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) / Tznkai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Notification of that editor

The appealing editor is asked to notify the editor who imposed or found consensus to impose the sanction of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diffof that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. As I am blocked, no notification can be given. It appears that Tznkai is presently inactive, and returned to WP only after a direct request by ArbCom for commentary.

Statement by Brews_ohare

Tznkai indicated here the intention that these requirements were not intended to be long-term, and recommended that I undertake this appeal. The intention of these restrictions was to cut short debate over procedural issues. I had undertaken to engage on Talk pages about WP policies, and some editors viewed that engagement as somehow attempting to escape the original ArbCom sanctions about "physics-related Talk page discussions". I did not have such an intention, and I certainly pledge to avoid any policy discussion that could be seen as somehow pleading a case for lifting the SoL restrictions and doing an end-run around an appeal.

I wish to point out that in the recent action against Trusilver I have expressed my views in his support. I do not, however, consider that to be an obstructive or disruptive action, but to be a normal part of such proceedings. I was an invited party in this action.

Presently I am blocked by Ucucha as violating Tznkai's extended sanctions as a result of suggesting a change in wording of a resolution. He also has suggested these sanctions should be reviewed. I would assume that repeal of these sanctions also would result in lifting this block.

Statement by DESiegel

I have no view as yet on the merits of extending or lifting these restrictions. However should they be extended, since they include a prohibition on editing the Misplaced Pages namespace, and in line with the currently proposed Misplaced Pages:Standard exception to Projectspace limitations, I suggest an exception for edits to AFD pages of articles where Brews_ohare is a creator or major contributor. Reasons in principle for such an exception can be found at the linked proposal page and its talk page. DES 00:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by JzG

With the proviso that such comments should be kept brief and to the point, this does not seem problematic. However, any tendency towards circular argument, Wikilawyering and so on will undoubtedly cause this to be reviewed again. I don't think Brews has understood and accepted the problem identified at arbitration, which was largely, to my view, about arguing the point long after it became obvious that he was in a tiny minority - WP:STICK applies here. Guy (Help!) 09:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

@ Count Iblis. You're refighting the arbitration case. Again. Guy (Help!) 10:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

@ Count Iblis again: you are not helping to fix the present problems, it's pretty clear to me and several others, including sitting arbitrators, that you are part of the problem not least because he seems to understand things a lot better than you do. With every word the "Brews crew" write you reduce Brews' credibility and chances of success. With friends like you he has no need of enemies right now. Sad but true. Guy (Help!) 16:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the appeal by Brews_ohare

I don't agree with Guy at all. What led to the ArbCom case against Brews was the fact that Brews was talking way too much on the talk page of the speed of light article. He was completely dominating there and that was seen to be disruptive by many others. It was not really that he was in a tiny minority with his views. Although he was in fact arguing a small minority POV (I and most others disagreed with him), that in itself was not really the problem. I could easily have argued my points in the way Brews was arguing and then I would have been found to be disruptive too, that despite te fact that what I would be arguing for would not be a "tiny minority POV".

So, it was really a behavioral problem. Brews had problems gauging the general climate on the talk page. If for most editors, enough is enough, you have to conclude your argument and move on. The problem is that you always have a few who are still discusing with you; you have to develop a sense for the often silent majority who are not discussing with you.

Brews is certainly not an editor like e.g. GoRight who Wikilayers a lot when actually editing articles. But we have to understand that when you're under sanctions and want to argue that you should be unblocked, you are required to present a case based on Wiki-law. That's how the Wiki-system works. You cannot at all talk about what you want to to edit or something of the sort. Similarly, if you are accused of breaking the 3RR rule, you cannot at all argue how wonderful our reversion are, that will bring you knowhere. You then have to argue why, based on Wiki-law, some of your edits should not count as reversions, or else simply admit that you were wrong.

The problem with Brews now, is really the huge physics topic ban. That steers Brews (who in real life is an engineering Professors) to do other things here than article work. And that in turn is seen to be problematic by some of his former critics. They succeeded in imposing a namespace ban for Brews some time ago. Brews was not at all behaving like Ottava Rima or ChildofMidnight on AN/I. He simply contributed quite constructively to some policy page discussions, to my essay and his own essay. But that was Wikilawyered by a few to be somehow re-arguing the ArbCom case. But if you actually read Brews' essay, you see that he was actually doing the complete opposite there. He was actually addressing the problem of how to close discussions on talk pages raised by small minorities.

Look, if Ottava Rima accuses an Admin of taking drugs on AN/I just because that Admin said something to him that he didn't like and at the same time some Admins (Jehochman are you listening?) are busy asking for severe penalties against Brews for writing up his ideas on Wiki-policies, while having a good time discussing with Ottava at AN/I, something is deeply wrong here :( . Count Iblis (talk) 14:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Guy I

I'm not refighting the original ArbCom case at all. I did not argue that Brews was not at fault and should not have been sanctioned in some way. All I did was summarize the events since the ArbCom case and analyze what happened. I concluded that the topic ban was too wide and that the namespace ban is also problematic. Not as a result of re-arguing the ArbCom case, rather from a pragmatic analysis of the current situation. In no way, did I reargue the original speed of light case arguments about who was right or wrong at that time or whether Brews conduct at the time was really disruptive or not.

What I wrote is entirely relevant for anyone who wants to understand and fix the present problems. Count Iblis (talk) 15:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Guy II

a) I'm not the one here who is using partizan descriptions here. Concepts like "friends", "enemies", "credibility" etc. etc. are irrelevant when it comes to editing science articles. If you look at a situation through these concepts, you are already making a mistake. It may be that for disputes on politics articles you do need to look at the situation in this way.

b) My primary interest in Brews is based on his potential to contribute a lot to certain types of physics articles. Brews is one of the few people who can do certain types of extremely time consuming editing work like expanding certain mathematical physics articles and make figures, because he has both the experise and has the time available for that.

c) I recognize that Brews has/had certain faults. I'm not a fanatical Brews defender. Constrctive proposals by me raised after the original ArbCom case like Brews being allowed to contribute under some mentoring argreement, or via his userpace with lots of checks and balances wrere always rejected without discussion by ArbCom. I always said that while I think that such checks and balances are not necessary anymore, I still proposed them as I know that others have a different opinion.

d) The whole bickering about Brews is never about actually contributing to any relevant content to physics articles. It is always about Brews having violated some stupid and irrelevant procedure/rule. This time it is posting on this namespace board, the posting being similar to the same posting by him on another namespace board, but that other board was an Arbcom board, so that was ok. Well Duh!

Unless I Wikilawyer about those procedures, I'm at fault. I'm at fault for simply talking about how Misplaced Pages can use the talents that Brews has in a constructive way. If I as an expert in certain physics topics with quite some Wiki-experience, give my opinion on what types of articles Brews can contribute to without causing problems, then I'm at fault. Perhaps ArbCom already knows what I could possible have to say about that? I don't think so. Count Iblis (talk) 16:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by David Tombe

One of the main problems with Tznkai's additional sanctions is the fact that Tznkai is no longer active on wikipedia, and that one of his last comments on the matter suggested that the sanctions had run their course. The exact words are here.. I know that Tznkai's words fall short of actually formally revoking the sanctions, but this needs to be balanced against the fact that no event has occurred that would have been likely to have altered Tznkai's intentions. And indeed when Tznkai made an appearance at the recent appeal to have Brews's sanctions lifted, he spoke very highly about Brews and suggested that everybody should shake hands with each other. David Tombe (talk) 15:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Hell in a Bucket

Yet again we find ourselves in the same situation we always are. Coming to contest a bullshit block that shouldn't have happened. When will arbcom realize that the process is flawed. How long until you make changes? This block is in answer to percieved usurpation of the powers directly resulting from the last arb case. If you want David, Count, Brews or myself to go away do something that makes sense and look in the mirror regarding your own behaviors and see the problems melt away. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Headbomb

Let's ask ourselves the question, "What edits would Brews make assuming the namespace ban lifted?" Given the long history of disruption, failing to get the point, and trying to change policies to accommodate his behavior rather than change his behavior to accommodate policies, I think is is safe to say that Brews' would use his newfound freedom to further soapbox against ARBCOM, ANI, behavioral policies, his topic ban, proposed new levels of bureaucracy to rectify the "great wrongs" that's been caused to him. Just look at his recent bans log. Blocked on Feb 28 for getting involved in a physics dispute and violating the namespace ban. This created a whole lot of ruckus with the Trusilver case. Then, knowing full well that he ban still applied, he went on vote in the de-adminship process (March 5), ranting against "arrogant admins". Then after that blocked was lifted, he again (March 15) went to edit the admin noticeboard, again as part as his campaign to right the great wrongs caused to him.

Brews et al. have been advised several times that the best way to get the ban lifted would be to drop the stick and focus on him being productive rather rather than thread all over Misplaced Pages screaming how much ARBCOM idolizes Stalin, that Hitler dreamed of having an army of Misplaced Pages-admins to enforce his policies, and that I'm some banana republic dictator hellbent on crushing dissent. Yet, they steadfastly refuse to do so, and keep fighting tooth and nail with a liberal amount of accusations of Stalinism, Tyranny, Nazism, invoking French literature, legal terms, philosophical essays on the nature of civilization, and the list goes on. Just ask JzG who first met them at Jimbo's talk page.

And this is what is happening with the current restrictions. If anything, we should consider increasing them. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by Brews_ohare

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

The preceding is cross-posted by yours truly from . Tim Song (talk) 22:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Notice of backlog

Just a heads up, WP:REQMOVE is getting pretty backed up. -- œ 06:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Roman Russi

Can someone please redirect the "Roman Russi" page to http://en.wikipedia.org/The_Blue_Mountain? The page seems to be blacklisted.

thanks --Sreifa (talk) 10:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done You could have done that yourself though, the page just needed to be created.--Atlan (talk) 10:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion as to the propriety of using 'hat' templates to bring closure to discussions

There is an ongoing discussion at Template talk:Hidden archive top#merge discussion: arbitrary break as to whether the language used on the {{hat}} template (often used to to close disputes) is appropriate. More opinions are requested. –xeno 14:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ch. Vasantha Rao

Would an admin please close this AfD? It has run for a full week and there is a veritable SPA/sock fest going on there turning the AfD into a bit of a circus. Nsk92 (talk) 15:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks! Nsk92 (talk) 18:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Melesse

Melesse (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Hi. You earlier had a report on this user here: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive602#User:Melesse

She recently deleted a photo I'd uploaded and she doesn't restore it (don't know if admins can). I told her about it here and then she deleted another one of my photos () which I had disputed on that photos talk page (can't find it anymore). She didnt reply at all so I'm bringing it up here. Sandman888 (talk) 16:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

You should probably take requests to have the deletion reviewed directly to WP:Deletion Review. -- Flyguy649 16:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

-sigh- not again. This hasn't been the first time Melesse has been making questionable deletes. Not long ago she was prematurely cleaning out C:CSD#Dated deletion categories based on her own time zone, a practice which went unchallenged for months. -FASTILY_sock 05:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

File deleted in error

File:BBC_World_Service_Big_Ben_1-1-2009.ogg was deleted in error. Reason given for deletion was CSD#F7, but this states "... may be deleted after two days, if no justification is given for the claim of irreplaceability." Justification was given using {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}; justification was "The BBC World Service will always be copyright of the BBC." Also, the file should not have been tagged for deletion in the first place as the file can never be replaced by a freely licensed alternative. This is because, in general, anything recorded from the radio is copyright. Finally, the administrator who deleted the file was the same one who tagged it. I don't know the guidelines on this, but this seems wrong as it does not allow a second pair of eyes to review the decision. Anyway, could we have this file back please? HairyWombat (talk) 16:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Normally, you would contact the deleting admin first -- that's Melesse (talk · contribs). However, since Melesse was both the nominator and deleter, you should probably take this directly to WP:Deletion Review. -- Flyguy649 16:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that's probably best. The file as a whole certainly isn't technically replaceable, but it's probably not supportable under WP:NFCC either. It would be easy to get a free recording of the Big Ben chimes for use in January 1, and I don't see how the sample is really necessary in BBC World Service either. It fails WP:NFCC#8, as far as I can see. Black Kite 19:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that's fairly inappropriate. If you nominate something for deletion, and another editor disputes the nomination and adds the appropriate tag to it, you really shouldn't be the one deciding it. This seems to be a fairly common practice of this admin, and it needs to stop. –xeno 23:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Note that there's another thread on WP:AN about user:Melesse (here). Also, Melesse had not been notified about this thread; I have now done so. -- Flyguy649 06:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The reporting user did inform Melesse of the therad, here. –xeno 13:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I have merged the two threads. –xeno 13:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• It's a little disappointing that the user has not taken the time to respond to either of these threads, but found the time to delete 283 pages this morning (including at least three out of process). –xeno 14:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, we have disruptive editing, misuse of admin tools, and refusal to communicate when asked to. I appreciate that admins are expected to behave to lower standards than are required of non-admins, but surely a block would now be in order? DuncanHill (talk) 14:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about a block, it would seem a little punitive at this point, but from what I can see, if Melesse won't communicate, it might be time to involve ArbCom. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully ArbCom is not necessary at this point. I left them a warning. –xeno 14:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

hi; photo edit

hello there good admins. I just edited the template Template:Feeding, to replace the photo ] with the photo File:Cebus albifrons edit.jpg. sound good? thought someone here might find that interesting. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

hey, how do you post a link to a photo file, without displaying the photo itself? thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

]. Why are you posting this here though?--Jac16888 16:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

well actually, i felt the photo choice related kind of basically to our scope as an encyclopedia. I felt a little editorial choice and notification was in order, just to help us head off similar issues in the future. so i just wanted to kind of mention it in some sort of general forum, where it wouldn't set off a whole set of needless debate. so this seemed like a good forum for that. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe leave an explanatory note at Template talk:Feeding? – ukexpat (talk) 16:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm a little concerned about this, since that image was being used just last week to vandalize Pakistan-related articles. I'm sure this is just a coincidence. Woogee (talk) 18:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

It's a featured picture and it's easy to find as it's used a lot. The 117.x vandal just found it like that, don't think there's anything to be concerned on that front. —SpacemanSpiff 18:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

errrm, yeah. you mean the monkey is in trouble for something around here??!?!?!!! Sheesh, some days you just can't win!!!! :-) LOL! (all kidding aside, I chose this only for its helpful subject matter.) --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• Note: Hi. As expected, some people are arguing to restore the photo of the eagle eating the bloody head of a mouse. can anyone here please stop by and offer some guidance? I will of course yield to the community consensus on this. I personally believe Misplaced Pages should not be using pictures which are gratuitously and needlessly gruesome. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

User: Robert LeBlanc

This user continues to add categories without supporting sources to articles despite having past accounts blocked for doing so. Can a sysop take a look? 216.163.247.1 (talk) 20:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Request to split Diabetes in cats and dogs page

Durova 03:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/Diabetes_in_cats_and_dogs

The article is becoming more and more diffcult to edit because many times, the information for cats is very different from that for dealing with canine diabetes. The last 2 talk page entries have also expressed the same thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Diabetes_in_cats_and_dogs#Opinion_about_quality

http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Diabetes_in_cats_and_dogs#Very_partial_article

Am willing to work with a Diabetes in dogs wikipedia page; would like to bring some of the contributed material from the Diabetes in cats and dogs page to it to get started. Would like to do it without creating any problems for Misplaced Pages or others.

What's the answer?

TIA!

We hope (talk) 22:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

This is a purely editorial matter and not an issue for the administrators' noticeboard. Please consider bringing this up at the article's talkpage, or if you feel capable of making a reasonable split between the two articles, consider being WP:BOLD and just doing it. Shereth 22:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

. Now where's the mind bleach? Guy (Help!) 00:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

CSD backlog

Category:Candidates for speedy deletion has nearly 160 pages in it, and over 60 images. Would an admin mind clearing it out? The Thing // Talk // Contribs 00:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards