Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bencherlite (talk | contribs) at 19:03, 14 June 2012 (→WP:FS Ban lift request: closed, it's snowing). 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

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

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

Archives

Index no archives yet (create)

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

• WP:CR
• WP:RFCL
• WP:ANRFC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other areas tracking old discussions

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

Administrative discussions

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

(Initiated 34 days ago on 13 December 2024) challenge of close at AN was archived nableezy - 05:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 31 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 100 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 80 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 70 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 69 days ago on 8 November 2024), RFC expired weeks ago. GoodDay (talk) 21:33, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Israel#RfC

(Initiated 54 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)

Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Voluntary RfA after resignation

(Initiated 31 days ago on 15 December 2024) Long, but the outcome is clear. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 8 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)

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 27 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 27 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 15 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 15 days ago on 1 January 2025) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 10 days ago on 6 January 2025) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Arab migrations to the Levant#Merger Proposal

(Initiated 113 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 79 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 70 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 19 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)

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

Requesting Closure of Rfc at Deaths in 2012

This has already been listed at requests for closure, and already requested on its talk page, but it's now nearing a full month after the RfC and no one has been by to assess consensus. We're getting to a stage that editors are making assumptions about the RfC due to its lack of closure. Considering this RfC determines whether we will follow the MOS for that page and a large number of others, it has a large impact on how we proceed with making a great number of changes. Could someone with a bit of free time come by and assess the arguments presented in the RfC, and close? It's really not as long as it initially appears, especially as a lot of the comments are bare votes. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 14:26, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Um, maybe I'm dumb (highly possible), but hear me out:

• the page is a list of notable deaths
• anyone on the list (most of them) who already has a Misplaced Pages article would already have a reference for their death in their article, and thus a plain old wikilink to their article would suffice (thus, no additional ref on the list of deaths)
• anyone/thing that is notable enough even though they have no article could be <ref>...</noref> and would have a ref on the page

Problem solved. I'm not allowed to have a supervote when I close. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:19, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm ok with that, but it was proposed on the talk page recently (see the bottom section) and received some opposition. I think we may be able to hash out a consensus for it with further discussion, but my experience so far on that article has been that a lot of editors have strong immutable opinions, and coming to agreement (as distinct from consensus) can be tough. Some regulars seem to just want things to stay the way they've been for the last 9 years. With that said, even if we did that, we'd still need a standard for the citations we did need. Some editors have opposed using ref tags (<ref></ref>) altogether. I've posted my thoughts in the relevant section, but I think keeping the RfC and that topic separate may be best. Others may feel differently. Thanks for the suggestion in either case!   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:39, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify, BWilkins, were you planning to close the discussion? Feel free to take your time if so, I just want to know if I should be continuing to look for a closer. Thanks!   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:53, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, just noticed this. :) I've closed the RFC, which I found listed on the 'requests' subpage. --Moonriddengirl 20:38, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Moonriddengirl! I appreciate the help! It's been sitting for a while now :)   — Jess· Δ♥ 08:33, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing (CIR issue with) User:Scott Delaney

I hate to do this, I truly do because he is probably a very nice guy, but I have no choice. User:Scott Delaney (formally User:Scottdelaney1067) is a problem. I've been following him since he started in January trying to answer questions and help him along because I noticed problems from the start (see his talk page history). User:Mojoworker has also been aware of the problems for a while (both already notified). He has traditionally been rather uncommunicative, but is finally getting over that but in a misguided way. He means well, but the editor is incapable of helping us here. On his talk page you will find where I was forced to address a large number of his edits where he tags as vandalism and puts the template on the editors page. I've previously just addressed on the editor's pages, and decided to put them in plain view because he recently joined WP:CVUA. This isn't even one day's worth, and his history is very similar, with 1/4 to 1/3 of his actions being simply wrong. It will take some digging to see what I mean, which is why I brought it here instead of ANI, but it is time for review. If I thought a short term block would do something, I would have gladly done it myself. Unfortunately, it won't solve the problem because I know he isn't malicious or careless, he just doesn't get it and I would rather not labor the details, letting you decide for yourself. In the end, disruption is still disruption and now that he has decided to become a full time vandal fighter, the damage and number of people he bites is simply too high. As much as I dislike doing this, I have no choice but to recommend an indef for CIR, and open up the floor for any other suggestions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 03:15, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

From what I gather, this is primarily an issue of not understanding WP:VANDALISM and the policies surrounding the use of automated tools. For now, I think the best option is to revoke the rights to automated tools until he can demonstrate a clear and thorough understanding of the relevant policies. I don't see the need for an indefinite block based on CIR. -Cntras (talk) 04:00, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Sigh. Sorry it's come to this. I guess it's no surprise, except that he promised just two days ago: "I have enrolled in the counter-vandalism unit academy. I will not try to revert any more vandalism until I have completed this course". That didn't last long... Earlier that day I had to revert some "test edit" warnings he gave to people that were testing edits in the sandbox and the X9 sandbox template. I had hopes that the WP:CVUA would do him good – I guess he's too impatient. Mojoworker (talk) 04:03, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've been monitoring this user's behavior for about a week, and what Dennis says is true. The user seems to use Twinkle for the vast majority of his edits, and removing the rights was one idea I had discussed with Dennis. So far as we could tell, there's no way to revoke a user's access to Twinkle. Otherwise, that would be a great idea. ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:07, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Ach, even reading his talk page is extremely alarming. However, he does have an "instructor" (some sort of adoption/mentor arrangement run by WP:CVU, seemingly), Chip123456, who has said on Scott's talk page that he will be away until Sunday (UK time). I think this discussion needs some input from Chip123456 to proceed usefully. On the other hand, I'm not convinced that Scott should be permitted to carry on incorrectly reverting and warning editors for the next 36 hours waiting for that. So, perhaps rather draconian, I suggest either Scott agree to stop completely from reverting and warning until Chip123456 is available again, or, if Scott isn't able or willing to agree to that, a 36 hour block be put in place to keep things under control in the meantime. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:11, 9 June 2012 (UTC) Struck section that's now irrelevant as Chip, like MacArthur, has returned. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:13, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Any block for CIR is currently premature. If after candid discussion, the conduct resumes, perhaps then. Scott Delaney is in a period of current inactivity so nothing is in imminent peril. It is clear however that a user who barely over a week ago was asking what a sandbox was is not a strong candidate to label contributions as vandalism. Give the guy a firm admonition via a final warning, and then take action if it is further warranted. My76Strat (talk) 06:07, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I would sincerely hope no admin would be blocking "for CIR" anyway, since it's only an essay, and indeed an essay which suggests not using the "competence is required" phrase to the person to whom it applies. Scott Delaney last edited less than twelve hours ago, identifying the removal of this unsourced drivel as vandalism. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:32, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I think everyone gets what I mean without the need for laboring it. I don't come here on a whim, and not before trying a great deal of other solutions and consulting with several others. There is a lot more here than a casual glance or modest effort will see. This is why I know there is no malice in the wide variety of unusual edits and comments, and well over half are fine. It is the others that are disturbing, going back to day one. Again, I've been watching since January and came here only because I've tried everything else. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 10:41, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

CIR is not the best framing of the issue -- disruptive editing is: If an editor treats situations that are not clearly vandalism as such, that editor may harm the encyclopedia by alienating or driving away potential editors. Concur with My76Strat -- last chance warning. Nobody Ent 13:44, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

A quick observation. Many of the problems this editor has may be solved if he were to avoid using the big red "Rollback vandalism" button in Twinkle and use one of the other rollback buttons instead. He could still use the "level 1 warnings" if needed as they are not to bitey. Scott, if you are reading this then please, just pretend that the big red "rollback vandalism" button doesn't exist, use the "rollback AGF" button instead. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 15:28, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I was always wary of letting Scott into the CVU academy as I didn't know how much good it would actually do with all the problems he seems to have in editing. I think it would be smart to wait until Chip comes back, and reevaluate Scott after a week of working with Chip. Dan653 (talk) 16:43, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The current problems might be TW related, but my concern predates the use of TW. The recent edits are the most obvious, but not the most telling, particularly when we consider my original reason for coming here. Use of TW only confirms, it didn't shed new light. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:06, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I have left a long message on his TP describing what will happen if he continues and have had to give him a final warning (not using TW), let me know if you think it's a bit steep. At the moment, I am against a block, I agree with Dan, let him have a little longer to demonstrate he understands, and I will continue working with him, but if he continues to use the tools to label edits as vandalism and incorrectly (even though he was told how to) give our warnings/disrupt by driving away editors, I will support the block.--Chip123456 (talk) 19:30, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, how long are you giving Scott to learn? Dan653 (talk) 20:21, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

A week, I removed (not a week). Although, if he were to continue to do what he has been doing wrong, he is obviously not learning and the academy would not be the place to be. I, as I said have told him he needs to fully understand WP:VAND before continuing and have left a message explaining he needs to be able to identify what is('nt) vandalism. He needs to grasp the ideas of the basics. I've also said he shouldn't use 'rollback VAND' in red, but simply 'rollback' in blue, until he is sure what he is doing, which he has been told what to do. With regards to the warning (I'm sure this issue popped up somewhere) I gave him a talk on when to give the warnings. --Chip123456 (talk) 20:45, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Whatever the consensus agrees to, I will support. Based on my long experience with him, including experience that isn't easy to tell from just a cursory check, I still feel that there are deep concerns that go beyond "mistakes", so time will tell I suppose. It is very difficult to provide diffs for this, it takes a long, hard look at the totality of his history. Again, the problem isn't malice and I don't think he could or would be mean on purpose, but that isn't why we are here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:27, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

It will be interesting to see if Scott responds to this or Chip123456's messages on his talk page. I've tried to start a dialogue with him a few times, and so far I don't think he's even acknowledged my existence. I haven't really seen a whole lot of communication with others either. ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:23, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

That is one part of my rationale here. I've probably tried to communicate more than everyone else combined. If he has a question, he will ask it. Other than that, he only talks via a template, even before becoming interested in vandalism. Perhaps that is why he became interested. He will provide some talk if someone questions his actions, once in a great while. Looking at those edits is somewhat telling. You have to dig a bit farther back to see this. Again, I'm willing to try whatever the community agrees to, but I can assure you that my CIR concerns are well founded and based on watching him and his edits on a regular basis, since his very first edits. He is intelligent and has the best intentions, but he does have a unique perspective that seem to make it difficult for him to differentiate. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 02:34, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I was under the impression, from Scott that he maybe inactive over the weekend. As you said, Dennis, he does have the best intentions and I think a main factor of the problem is his lack of ability to listen to what other editors are saying. If, for a little while he spent less time reverting and more time studying the policies and reading what on his talk page, he would be a better editor, and this is what the CVUA is here for, so he can tackle vandalism correctly. Likewise, whatever the community agrees will be ok, but I'm thinking stay clear of a block at the moment.--Chip123456 (talk) 07:36, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

If there is no consensus for a long term fix of this problem thru a CIR block, I will perform a removal of TWINKLE from the user's vector.js, to be enforced thru page protection if need be. He can always ask us to add new scripts if he needs to. I have no clue about this University of Countervandalism or whatever it is, but if a user is hitting innocent users with reverts in an abnormal amount compared to the actual reverts (a % of mistaken reverts are always bound to happen, but this seems to be much higher than it should be), then, simply put, the user shouldn't be doing countervandalism work. He should be flat out told, get out of this field. He can always write articles or whatever he wants. Innocent users getting hit with mistaken warnings is a *BIG* issue, as most of them will be scared away, and we're hence deterring potential and actual contributors. In my opinion the way to proceed now is to a) wait for the user's input, I hope the user can voluntarily refrain from using twinkle and go back to doing manual undos and/or wait for this CVU university thingy b) if the input is deemed insufficient, I or any other administrator will remove TWINKLE from this user's vector.js, enforcing it with a full protection of the page(s) if necessary c) if the user still performs manual undos that are not acceptable in significant quantity, a CIR block should be imposed. Snowolf 08:02, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Snowolf. I had wondered if such a solution was possible using this very method. If I thought that this could be addressed via mentoring, I would have simply done this as I do have a history of helping Scott and he is familiar with me. And if I thought it was malicious, I would have just blocked him along the way. This seems like a reasonable compromise that will allow others to view his other ongoing contributions to determine CIR status, while limiting the potential damage he can do to the project. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:30, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Bad idea (vector.js protection). I appreciate and concur with the general concept blocking should be a last resort but in this instance the plan should be Snowolf's a, c. If the user cannot manage themselves after clear communication, a disruptive editing indef block should be applied. It's not worth the community's effort to try to micromanage a user; they're either mature enough to edit or not. If they're not, the likely outcome of plan b is we're back here at a future date dealing with behavior of a similar nature if not the specific instance. Or we're back here at a future date discussing unprotecting vector.js. Just not worth the effort, all in all. Nobody Ent 12:51, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's obviously a suboptimal idea, it's more like "if the community doesn't feel he should be CIR blocked but he's still doing damage" sort of thing. And actually technically our policies have always preferred blocking to protection, and I concur with that. Snowolf 14:41, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

To clarify, simply removing twinkle doesn't seem like a big deal, if having to go back to doing manual undos has the potential to make him think more, that could be fruitful. I am not saying this is the case, users closer to the matter would know that better than I. The vector.js protection is what I just referred to as suboptimal in the message above. Snowolf 14:45, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

A block is inappropriate now because the editor has not edited since this AN was initiated. Continued disruption by mislabeling edits vandalism would be grounds for blocking.Nobody Ent 15:02, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, a short term block was warranted without coming to AN. I've warned him a number of times, albeit more gently. I didn't come here because I felt I needed permission to block him, I came here because I feel a short term block wouldn't be effective once the block expired. If a CIR block can't reach consensus, then something needs to be done to prevent damage to the project, but a block with him returning to using TW is not likely to be effective. I'm open minded, but my feelings that a longer term solution is best haven't changed. No one has shown me that my observations and conclusions are flawed. I haven't went and counted all the bad calls he made, those 8 or 10 were only part of one day, and at that point I gave up and came here. Obviously the actual number is much, much greater. How many good editors have we now lost because Scott bit them, with good intentions but an inability to discriminate? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:25, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Update: We have dropped Scott from the Academy as the issues he has have gone way beyond the purpose and scope of the academy. Dan653 (talk) 20:50, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Then we are back with the question of what to do, as Scott has full access to TW and now even less guidance. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:03, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• Scott has shown up on his talk page and asked for my help. I've told him I would like him to come here and address the issues as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:28, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I have read the warnings that have been placed on my talk page and i have been thinking, I need to be more careful. I realized that if people remove content for a reason, it's Best not to revert it. I also realized if someone removes content, i need to click the blue rollback button using Twinkle and add, section blanking. I am going to Carefully check the edits made before taking any action. if you have any tips on what is Vandalism And what is not Vandalism, Please let me know. This will help me identify what is Vandalism, And What is Not vandalism. Thank you for letting me know about those false positives i made. This also Helps me to identify what is Vandalism, And What is Not vandalism.

I will Be on wikipedia:Friday Afternoons.Saturday Mornings.Inactive on Sundays And on and off wikipedia Monday Through Thursday (New Zealand time)

P.S If you're wondering why i am here, Dennis brown sent me here to discuss this.

Thank You for understanding.Scott Delaney (talk) 00:33, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• With respect to the use of Twinkle only, one possibility is for Scott to remove Twinkle himself, from his vector page and from Gadgets (that's where I have it specified - I don't know if the two are mutually exclusive) and to promise to keep it removed until his mentor or an admin familiar with the issue believes he can use it appropriately. It seems to me it would quickly become apparent if Scott fails to keep his promise, at which point a block would be in order.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:46, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Should i prove that i can use Twinkle properly?. Because i have explained that i am Going To be much more Cautious when using twinkle.Do you think we should do some tests To see if i can use Twinkle Properly? Scott Delaney (talk) 00:52, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I think they want you to not use it for a while, but tell me, what would you do differently with it, or without it? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:56, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I will Thoroughly Check the Edits Before taking any action. and if someome removes content, i will do what i said above. most of what i have promised to do is explained above.i have read WP:VAND.Scott Delaney (talk) 00:59, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I was looking back through your contributions. Other than reverting, do you ever change or add content to an article? I had trouble seeing anything, although I didn't go back all the way. Also, you have a curious way of writing (the strange capitalization and somewhat fragmentary style). I have a feeling others know more about all of this than I do, but it did give me some pause. As for Twinkle, I don't think your response to Dennis's question is particularly satisfying. Why don't you stop using Twinkle and prove you can edit appropriately without it before proving you can edit appropriately with it? Slowing you down wouldn't be a bad idea, anyway.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:37, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

How many manual edits do you want to see from me first?Scott Delaney (talk) 01:51, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think putting a number on it would be helpful. Although you didn't answer my question about editing articles, why don't you focus on other aspects of editing articles rather than just reversions? I'm not familiar with your mentoring, so I don't know if you have any plans in this area, but getting away from hot spots sounds like a good idea. As long as I'm talking basics, what are your goals here? Why do you want to contribute to Misplaced Pages? You answered my question on my Talk page (nothing is hidden ) about your age. So, you're 14. There's all sorts of differences of opinion at Misplaced Pages about the age of editors, but most of us would acknowledge that 14 is young. When I was 14, the web didn't exist, let alone Misplaced Pages. I'm pretty sure television existed. I'm rambling, but there must be something that impelled you to register and edit, more than just an isolated event, something more important to you. What was that? Has it changed since you've been editing, not to mention being pummeled by the likes of me and others here? It's hard (at least for me) to ignore the fact that you're 14, but even if you were older, it looks to me like you're getting in over your head, that you need to slow down, that you need to expand your editing into less controversial areas of the project. I'll stop now and turn it back to you.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:08, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

You might want to look at This edit.Because i do have experience identifying personal attacks. P.S I look at the Abuse log.Scott Delaney (talk) 21:26, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

This IP Has A long history of Personal Attacks and Legal Threats.Scott Delaney (talk) 21:30, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• Actually, the IPs first edit was May 23rd, about two weeks ago. Or was this editor editing under a different IP address before now? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

You might want to look Here. List of edits by the IP.Scott Delaney (talk) 21:54, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I Have issued him with a Final Warning. if he makes personal attacks and legal threats again, an Andministrator will have to take action.Scott Delaney (talk) 22:02, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Scott, you didn't answer my questions above. Instead, you picked an example of one of your actions that you believe is defensible. There's nothing wrong with that, but you need to focus on what others are telling you and asking you. That's more important.

As for your actions with respect to 121., from looking at some of the history, it's a complicated situation in which there were apparently some significant problems with the article that the IP was trying to fix, but they were going about it in a disruptive manner. I wouldn't have issued the final warning because, at bottom, there were more important issues to address than the IP's frustration and outbursts. That said, I wouldn't say that your warning was wholly indefensible.

Although I don't want to look at your entire history (partly because I trust Dennnis's judgment in these matters, and I have little desire to redo what he's already done), I did look at something you did relatively recently. An IP removed two sections of an article without explanation. Through our automated process, the two edits by the IP were tagged as "section blanking". You reverted the two edits here with Twinkle as vandalism. Your action was ill-considered on two levels. First, I would have not done a rollback, and I would not have called it vandalism. Instead, if I was going to revert, I would have done it with "sum" and put in an explanation like "unexplained removal of material". But, second, and more important, the sections the IP removed were unsourced, incredibly controversial, and contained BLP violations. Ultimately, both sections were properly removed by more experienced editors. I'm sorry, but this kind of action demonstrates that you simply do not have the judgment to rollback edits or, frankly, even to revert them manually.

At this point, I would only permit you to edit at Misplaced Pages if you (1) promised to stop using Twinkle (remove it from your script list); (2) promise to stop reverting any other editor's edits; and (3) promise to stop issuing warnings to other editors. In other words, you would have to engage in other kinds of activities at Misplaced Pages, not what you have been doing up to now. Without those promises, I would block you indefinitely. With those promises, as long as you abide by them, I would permit you to edit. If you failed to comply, I would block you indefinitely. How long would you have to do this? I would say that at the end of 6 months, you could come back here and ask for some relief. At that time, you'd have to show that you've been making positive contributions to Misplaced Pages (in other words, just sitting out 6 months doing nothing or very little wouldn't be good enough) and that you have a deeper understanding of what to look at before reverting edits, and a promise that you would proceed much more slowly in doing so (I sense that you act too quickly). The abuse log is interesting, but just like the tags, it doesn't necessarily mean that the edit was vandalism. You have to judge each case on its merits.

I'm sorry if this is blunt, but I sincerely think this has a positive aspect to it. I'm not sure why you like reverting and warning so much (maybe it's like a video game where you zap the enemy with the push of a button), but I don't see doing just reverting and warning leading to much growth as an editor. Getting involved in other things would help you and hopefully help Misplaced Pages.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:53, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• This would appear to be consistent with Snowolf's idea but a bit stronger, and the closest thing we have to a compromise, giving him the opportunity to continue as an editor. My original concerns still stand, and we have to do something here to limit damage. I would support this version as a good faith, last chance opportunity. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I promise to do everything you mentioned. and i don't know if that editer was using a different ip address or not.Scott Delaney (talk) 01:32, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

• Is there an experienced editor that is willing to do some light-duty mentoring for Scott? It doesn't require an admin, just someone familiar with the basics here. I have a full plate, or I would myself, but I think that if Scott is to be allowed to be here, a little assistance is needed, to be fair to him. I expect that a few of us will continue to monitor, but I would feel better if someone would please step up and act as a primary point of contact for Scott and provide him with some guidance along the way. If someone will do that, I will boldly make adjustments to vector.js and setup a basic set of guidelines so there is no confusion. If we are to move forward in this way, clarity is needed to be fair, and just a little oversight from someone. As a personal favor, I am asking someone to help in this way. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:57, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I would be willing to do that, but I would have one condition. I would need a commitment from Scott that he will communicate with me. I'd need him to acknowledge comments I make on his talk page (as opposed to reading them and not responding, or worse, blanking them), and I'd need him to answer any questions I might have in a straightforward manner. Basically I need two-way communication.

I'm asking this as if it were a personal favor, and it is very important to me personally, but in reality, this kind of communication is essential to anyone who wants to seriously edit Misplaced Pages.

@Scott: Would you be willing to accept me as a sort of mentor, and if yes, would you accept my condition of engaging in open two-way communication with me?

@Dennis: I think the clarity and guidelines you propose are going to be very important (and helpful to me as well). ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, i will let you be my mentor, And i Promise to Engage in a two-way Communication with you. If you want to ask me any questions, you can ask them Here.--Scott Delaney (talk) 21:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Scott. Just so we're all on the same page, are we still moving forward with User:Bbb23's suggestion of having Scott (1) Stop using Twinkle; (2) stop reverting other editor's edits; (3) stop issuing warnings to other editors; and (4) become a "normal" editor (as opposed to vandal fighter) for some time period? (I personally think 6 months is a little long, and would perhaps suggest that he could return to vandal fighting earlier if the community thought he was ready. I also think #2 is a little strict, and think Scott should be free to perform reverts as a part of normal editing, as long as he leaves valid edit summaries and limits himself to a voluntary WP:1RR.) Anyway, I'm content to let Dennis hammer out these details, but that's my opinion. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

• The plan - As this is a strictly voluntary process for Scott, I would be bold enough to leave this completely under the discretion of Adjwilley, whom I am confident is objective and capable of performing this role. If there any part of this that requires administrative tools, I will assist, but otherwise I would fully empower him to make all decisions on how to proceed, how long to proceed, and what restrictions to be in place, on his timetable. The mentoring should continue until Adjwilley feels there is reason for Scott to be allowed to be unrestricted, or until he (or others) feel there is a need to reopen this process. I would request that Adjwilley notify Mojoworker and myself prior to any final decision on ending the mentoring to allow for discussion, as we are most familiar with the entire history. As Scott has said he is willing to do this, and I am willing to give every possible chance for this to work, I would request a close of this discussion that is consistent with this plan. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

• I am happy with the modified plan suggested by Adjwilley, particularly because he is going to mentor Scott. I also am predisposed to like anyone who has absolute pitch.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:16, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Perth move situation and a wider systemic issue it highlights

Hi - as was discussed earlier in AN/I (and closed as it wasn't the venue for it), there was a contentious RM at Talk:Perth, Western Australia#Requested_move, which was closed in favour of moving (with 19 supports and 13 opposes). However, three subsequent admins reverted and re-reverted until it ended up back at the status quo. Part of the problem was a complete disagreement on whether consensus had been reached - the closer clearly thought 60% was enough, but others didn't.

It now looks like ArbCom are going to accept a separate case about the reverts; what we never really managed to do was decide how to solve the original problem, and if ArbCom do accept a case, I'm not sure that the RM should be left in limbo for however many weeks or months it takes to sort that out, especially since the actual location of the article is not part of the ArbCom case. I've talked to a few admins offsite - all of whom have recused themselves from involvement so they could offer me advice - and they believe the initial close was sound.

Two things upfront:

1. I am not even remotely trying to pretend I'm uninvolved or neutral - I voted in the RM, and I agreed with the original close.
2. I am not trying to convince some poor sod here to be the fifth admin to get involved in this sorry mess, I'm seeking a general discussion on a matter where the system appears to be broken.

We have no independent review mechanism or other natural forum for discussion which can cope with a situation like this. For AfD or CfD, etc, there's always been DRV. But moves seem to exist in a parallel universe. Move review is untested and does not have sufficient standing in policy terms to be respected by all, and the history of RfCs in resolving these things is patchy at best. I highly doubt the Perth article is the first time this problem has emerged, too. So, any ideas? Orderinchaos 20:12, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• I have disambiguated incoming links th Perth (a drama-free alternative to a move). DuncanHill (talk) 21:09, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
• This will likely be among the first nominations at Misplaced Pages:Move review. There is a strong consensus for a move review process. The process is mostly in place with discussions continuing to resolve some issues. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:23, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
• As I said at the Arbcom page, I think the discussion should have been closed as No Consensus, because (a) 19-13 isn't much of a consensus, and (b) far too many of the Support votes were just votes of the general format "Australian Perth is clearly the primary topic". Whether it is or not, I'd be wanting to see some justification for that. However you are right about the wider systemic issue (see, for example, the history of Yogurt). I can't see an RfC helping either, so I'd suggest that it would be better to try and get Move Review sorted out - the problem is though, like DRV, that it may just end up being the same discussion again...though it does have the advantage (like DRV) that non-involved editors will get involved. Black Kite (talk) 17:45, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Backlog at CSD

There's a big-ish back log at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. 41 may not seem so big in comparison to other backlogs but these tend to come in fairly fast so it could get out of hand. --RA (talk) 21:26, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

41 is not a backlog. Indeed, it doesn't become one until over 50. Turns out my bot was down too, which didn't help. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Making botlike edits for a short while

I have a very specific situation and I can't find an appropriate place to make the request so I will ask it here. I recently created {{Navbox Copelatus}} in order to de-orphan all of the articles listed on the page Copelatus. There are 422 different species and making that many edits manually or even semi-manually would be incredibly time consuming. I would like to use bot-mode on AWB (after I have manually checked the first few articles to make sure everything works out correctly) to make those edits more easily. Can I receive permission to do so? Ryan Vesey Review me! 01:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Upon further review, it appears that bot mode is not available for me on English Misplaced Pages. I had only used it on Spanish Misplaced Pages previously. I will register a bot account. Ryan Vesey Review me! 02:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Or ask at WP:BOTREQ. Bencherlite 13:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Requests for closure going unheeded?

The section of "requests for closure" at the top of this page seems counterproductive. Admins simply aren't looking at it, and it seems that discussions are being archived before being acted upon. Perhaps admins should add it to their watchlists? — This, that, and the other (talk) 02:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

It looks like you don't know, that the "requests for closure" isn't on this page and is transcluded from WP:ANRFC. Thus the section isn't archived by a bot, and only sections with closed discussion are archived. Armbrust, B.Ed. _{The Undertaker 20–0} 13:06, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I am aware that it is transcluded. I was not aware, though, that it was manually archived. Still, my point stands. — This, that, and the other (talk) 00:11, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

How to best go about deleting good edits by a banned user

I needed some advice on this matter.

Earlier this week, Sheynhertz-Unbayg (talk · contribs) had another round of accounts banned for sockpuppetry. Sheynhertz-Unbayg has been banned for over two years for assorted disruptions to the community, yet continues to attempt to contribute via a vast array of sockpuppets (nearly 250 as of last count).

Anywho, per WP:BAN, all of the accounts' edits should be summarily reverted. For now, I've been dealing specifically with sock Shalshelet (talk · contribs), which is the newest sock I first noticed. However, a great deal of them are "positive" edits and are particularly tricky to revert cleanly. I've tagged a number of pages with criteria G5 deletion tags, but reverting other edits in other places is more tricky (where he moved around information to disambig pages and such), and I'm not sure if a few edits should be reverted at all, since they were actually helpful.

Basically, I'm not sure if all edits should be reverted on principle, or if I should ignore all rules and let the helpful ones sit. Any advice (and some outside eyes) in the matter would be greatly appreciated. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 16:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I think even if the edits added value to the article, the fact that they came from socks of a banned user makes them worth being reverted. Sheynhertz-Unbayg should just get lost and RTV - those edits don't erase his or her sins. --Eaglestorm (talk) 16:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Last time I looked, there was not a concept in WP:BAN that all such edits should be reverted, only that they can be reverted. I've always taken that to mean it is ok to ABF towards the individual edits and remove them if you think they may be pursuing an agenda, misrepresenting sources, etc., without having to check them carefully. But if you think they do hold up to scrutiny, it's ok to leave them in. And because humans differ from one another, I don't think there is a one-size-fits-all way to tell what effect reversion (or any other action) will have on another person's behavior, especially if that person's behavior is already abnormal enough that they managed to get banned. If your reading of this particular person suggests a particular course of action, then go for it, but don't overgeneralize. Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee 3 has some further discussion. 69.228.171.139 (talk) 16:41, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Any argument for reverting all edits are ridiculous. We are here to build an encyclopedia. Reverting helpful edits is no worse than blatant vandalism and could be construed as disrupting the encyclopedia to make a point. Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:44, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

So you can do anything you like and if you are banned simply start editing under a false name and you'll be able to carry on as if nothing has happened, retaining your editing priveleges? Terrific. Britmax (talk) 16:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

You do not retain privileges, you get blocked. That doesn't mean we should intentionally revert constructive edits. Ryan Vesey Review me! 17:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Screw that. Banned is banned, what is unclear about that? That means that any more effort the banned editor puts in here is WASTED EFFORT. It's not a game to see what gets kept and what gets taken out. It's a ban, plain and simple. If someone wants to revert every edit of a banned editor, more power to them. And it's fine to not revert complicated changes too, if you think there's a risk of damage to the previous versions. But there's no problam at all with someone reverting all the edits, the whole point of banning is that the community has gotten tired of having to evaluate the banned person's edits. Got that? When we ban someone it means we're not going to evaluate their edits for quality, we are going to revert them. Franamax (talk) 20:59, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Screw that. Positive edits are positive edits, what is unclear about that? If an edit has been determined to be clearly positive then don't remove it. It's not rocket science. I wouldn't be against reverting borderline cases since the fact of the ban means AGF is no longer applied. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:28, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

You are completely missing the point. Editors get banned when we decide that the effort of evaluating their edits is not worth it because the helpful proportion is too low. There is no requirement any more to evaluate the edits, we ban them so we won't have to keep doing that! If you want to chase around after banned sockpuppeteers on your own time and find edits of theirs to revert back in and take responsibility for because you "determined to be clearly positive", go for it. (and watch how quickly you get taken advantage of I bet) There is no such obligation on anyone else. Franamax (talk) 21:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The difference between what you are stating and the current situation is that someone has already determined at least some of these edits to be positive. The question is, should the good be removed with the bad. I say no. If it hadn't already been determined that there were some constructive edits then I don't care if a bit of collateral damage occurs in the revert. That being said, any argument that states that a good edit should be reverted solely because it was from a banned user is illogical if it has already been determined to be good. Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:00, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Two-part answer. First, there is no disembodied "someone" here, there is the OP who asked for advice and your response characterized one of their options as "ridiculous", "blatant vandalism" and "disrupting the encyclopedia to make a point" - but no admin has opined here at the adminstrator's noticeboard so far that they would be willing to block someone for reverting edits of a banned user; second, yes there is some logic in the reversion argument. I wouldn't advise anyone to choose one (blanket revert) over the other (evaluate & keep good) and I have done it both ways in the past, but the rationale for reverting all edits is to convince the banned person that their efforts are futile unless they will comply with the editing requirements at this website, or they can simply leave and get on with their real life. The underpinning is the whole notion of crowdsourcing: if it was a good edit, it will get made again anyway sometime in the future by someone completely different, sometime before the deadline. The edit is not dependent on the editor. Franamax (talk) 22:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

There are only very few, very specific instances in which banned editors edits are reverted en masse, regardless of how useful they are. This does not seem to be one of these cases. --Conti|✉ 16:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

It's about the encyclopedia - does this benefit the encyclopedia? Removing good, sourced content doesn't do that. People are not being rewarded by having their text in the project, as it isn't their text. Secretlondon (talk) 16:59, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm with 69.228.171.139 and would say that depends on how difficult it is to ascertain whether an edit is helpful or not. Per WP:BAN, if we remove some good edits together with the bad ones, that's collateral damage, and "the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert", but we need not revert edits we consider an obvious improvement. Huon (talk) 16:59, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

It's a simply logical thought process: If I see a productive edit by a banned user, I could follow the rules to the letter and revert. And then immediately revert myself again, claiming responsibility for those edits. Or I might not revert the edits in the first place and save myself some time. --Conti|✉ 17:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with RyanVesey, Huon, Conti, etc. If the a contribution is clearly positive, there's no reason to revert it. As an analogy: If a high school student was suspended/expelled for constantly vandalizing the school and he came back later to pick up trash and clean the place, the administration would likely tell him he had to leave because he is not supposed to be there, but they wouldn't dump the trash back out onto the floor that he had picked up. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 18:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, I was going to use a similar (but more extreme) analogy. Frankly, if constructive edits were reverted I and I knew about them, I would restore them. Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

So what makes those edits any more constructive than the edits you could already be making on your own in the same amount of time it will take you to evaluate and restore them? Why wouldn't you be trying to work with the editor to get their ban lifted instead? Where's your offer of mentorship? Or are they only interesting while they're banned? Franamax (talk) 21:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I didn't state it, but in restoring them I would become responsible for the edits at which point they are no longer those of the banned editor. I wouldn't spend an enormous amount of time reviewing, I am talking about clearly constructive edits here. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Just my opinion here but if the edits were positive we shouldn't delete them IMO. We do have to review them for their merits but once we see what the edit was and have determined it positive we should move on. Especially if other edits were done to the article after that which means you would need to eliminate all those as well. Kumioko (talk) 21:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

It really depends on the case I think. I just gone through a batch myself and reverted/deleted most but left those that where clearly poitive and outside the area of usual disruption. Saying that, the rule exists so that we can have a quick cleanup operation. No-one should be forced to spend time on any of these edits so expect good edits to go and conversly if you are in cleanup mode someone will come back at you complaining or if they got sense reverting you and taking responsiblilty for the edit. Agathoclea (talk) 21:30, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The trash analogy does have some merit. However, after glancing at the very sizable sock investigation archive, it appears that what is needed is help IRL rather than mentoring on Misplaced Pages. "Constructive" edits from a habitually unconstructive participant may still be part of an ulterior agenda. Taroaldo (talk) 21:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

(not really responding to anyone in particular) It should be pointed out that this user was, in a way, banned for dubiously positive edits. More specifically, they work only within surnames, largely Jewish or Middle Eastern last names, and create disambig pages, move around existing ones and tag list pages with stub tags. While sometimes they're helpful, they usually end up making an enormous mess of badly tagged articles, unnecessary disambiguations and unneeded redirects. This editor was banned not for those edits specifically, but for blindly reverting anyone who tried to fix it and discuss it with them - and then, later on, extensive socking to get around blocks placed on them because of this. Since this editor does work in a very predictable area, and usually in very predictable ways, I wonder if there's a way an edit filter or bot could be set up to catch them before they become a problem, or at the very least notify an available admin of the situation for further investigation (to avoid false positives). The original account back in 2006 had 20,000 edits, most of which were problematic: the newer ones have managed nearly 100 or so each, and it's obnoxious to clean up afterwards for the above reasons - some of the edits are helpful and probably shouldn't be summarily removed. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 21:43, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I am very familiar with SU, after cleaning up hundreds of his dab/surname pages at WP:SU five years ago. If he had learned what edits were okay and what weren't, I actually wouldn't mind his socking. BUT HE STILL DOESN'T UNDERSTAND what's wrong with parts of his edits. I've been cleaning up after his socks until I got too SU-bonked, and if people keep cleaning up his edits, he'll just continue socking and see that (at least some of) his edits stick. So personally, I think starting to revert everything by him may actually make him understand that it's futile to edit wikipedia, and spare us his mess. – sgeureka 15:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

That was my initial thought as well. Perhaps if it was made clear that none of their contributions were welcome, regardless of content, they would finally give up. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 16:52, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I (original blocking admin) have spent many days reverting and deleting edits Sheynhertz-Unbayg made through his many throwaway socks. It was rather depressing, and does not seem to have done much good. It does make him infuriated for a couple of days, but he returns a couple of months later to do the same as before.

Actually, for the specific situation of SU, I would welcome anything that gets him toward using a single account. I am unable to talk to him (I tried many times) but if anybody wants to try, ask me by e-mail and I will give you his e-mail address (which is essentially public). I don't mind unblocking his main account if that helps anything. —Kusma (t·c) 09:30, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Getting to the larger issue

While it may seem that in this particular case, perhaps some of the edits should stand, does it apply universally? Many of Misplaced Pages's most prolific sockpuppeteers were banned not for negative contributions but for battleground-like behaviors, POV-pushing, off-wiki harassment and unworkable tendentiousness. Taroaldo raises a good point above: though individual edits aren't necessarily a problem, they might be part of a larger push to either disrupt Misplaced Pages internally or mold it to fit their particular point of view. You have to balance this potential problem with what others have said above; it's also bad form to "throw cleaned-up trash back into the hallway," as it were. Good faith should probably be extended even to banned users, albeit on a very limited basis (they were banned, after all). It's quite a dilemma. How do you know when to decide one way versus the other? It's likely not something that can be decided universally. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 04:06, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I haven't really had this opportunity (so to speak) to confront from this issue, but in my opinion -- whatever that's worth! -- I can see both sides. When someone is banned, we're essentailly saying that we refuse to deal with them any more and spend effort evaluating each and everything they do. The presumption of good faith does seem to be shackled somewhat to speak. But the thing is, let's say that you happened to find good content in an article, and you notice that it is good content before you realize it's from a banned user. I don't think that there's anything in policy that says that you MUST revert that, or even that someone should. I mean, what if the content is on a Biography of a Living Person, and the banned user removed defamatory material from a page? Should we put the defamatory material back and remove it again> That seems silly! I also think that anyone passionate enough to create 250 accounts here will take up too much time to chase around like this, to ensure that not a single edit they make survives no matter what it is. DrPhen (talk) 05:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

There is at least one banned editor (can't remember which one) that ArbCom explicitly ruled must be reverted on site in all cases. It's a rare true example of an exception that proves the rule. But otherwise, I'd agree that it depends on why the editor is banned. Of course, if the editor was banned for consistently making copyright violations or inserting false information, the nuke every edit they make. If the editor was banned simply for being an ass I don't feel compelled to revert. But if someone does take it upon themselves to revert a banned editor, anyone who reinstates that edit takes responsibility for it in my opinion. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:42, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

resp DrPhen-- If someone creates 250 accounts, I would not characterize it as "passionate". It's more like "obsessive" or "manipulative". Taroaldo (talk) 18:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

True, perhaps I was understating things just a tad, eh? My concern, though, is that what if an editor (not necessarily a whackyjob like the guy with 250 accounts!) who is banned for something less severe or horrific comes back and, say, removes a copyright infringing material from a page or removes libel from a biography? Would it really be a good policy to reinsert copyright infringmenet or re-add potentially dangerous libel to a page just because it was a banned user? I think in cases like that it would be better to leave changes like that, just for that limited case, alone just to avoid inadvertently being destructive. DrPhen (talk) 00:31, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Use common sense when deciding to delete each and every edit of a banned editor (the "good" edits) just because the policy says you can. If one of those edits was them removing a copyvio: don't reinsert the copyvio in order to revert a banned editor. If they reverted a vandal, and the vandal hasn't reinserted the garbage: don't reinsert the vandalism because a banned editor made the edit. Doc talk 09:57, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

In such a situation, apply WP:IAR and WP:COMMON. Blackmane (talk) 10:19, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Which articles were G5ed?

Elektrik Shoos, can you please provide a list of the articles that you G5ed? If some of them are actually good content articles, and I presume at least a few of them are, then I would like to take responsibility for them and remove the G5 tag, per Misplaced Pages:BAN#Edits_by_and_on_behalf_of_banned_editors. Silverseren 07:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I use Twinkle's logging feature, so all CSD and PROD tags I place are logged. You can see the list at User:Elektrik Shoos/CSD log. All of the G5'd pages can be found under June of this year. They are all surname articles or redirects. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 14:56, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

However, all of them have already been deleted save one, which was the first one. (I self-reverted immediately afterwards after I looked at the history and noticed a large history of edits by others as well. G5 requires no substantial edits by others. I thoroughly checked the history for every page tagged afterwards.) elektrikSHOOS (talk) 15:07, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposed unban and unblock of User:Sheynhertz-Unbayg

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

Since we are now going to allow all of User:Sheynhertz-Unbayg's edits and that he will continue to evade his ban to make good contributions, there is no sense in continuing to impose a ban on him. At this time, I propose that Sheynhertz-Unbayg be unbanned and unblocked and free to do whatever he wants. --MuZemike 14:40, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. I don't see how unbanning Sheynhertz-Unbayg due to some positive edits solves the reasons they were banned in the first place: blind reverting of other people's changes for their edits, extensive socking (over 250 accounts!), and an absolute refusal to discuss problematic edits with other people. If Sheynhertz-Unbayg presents themselves to an admin and agrees to change these habits, I'd support an unban. Otherwise I think we're recreating a problem that was already solved years ago. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 14:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

This is not such a bad idea. If we can't enforce the ban, actually officially allowing edits and communicating with SU is probably the only thing we can do. I don't volunteer for communicating, though. —Kusma (t·c) 17:39, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Copyright Infringement in direct quoting

According to Misplaced Pages:Quotations#Copyrighted material and fair use, a 400-word direct quote from a 500-page book is considered infringement of the copyright law. I have two questions based on that:

1. What if the book we are quoting from has 250 pages. Does that mean, we are allowed only 200 words in the direct quote?

2. If we quote a book directly in a single article more than once, should we sum up all the quotes' word count to apply this rule or the rule is only talking about per-single-quote?

Thank You--Kazemita1 (talk) 16:10, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

1.As that was a legal case, we can't make a comparable statement easily. But hopefully someone will be along to say more about this.

2.Over the article, and in fact possibly over all of Misplaced Pages. Again let's see what others say. I'm sure about over the article (or talk page or anywhere), and I've certainly seen it suggested over Misplaced Pages in the case of lyrics. Dougweller (talk) 16:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

• • It's a hard call. Fair use depends on a four factors . One factor is "The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole". On the whole, we try to stay very far from any line between fair use and infringement. But it also depends on part on those other points. If having it on Misplaced Pages would interfere with the ability of the copyright holder to make money ("The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work") then we need to be extremely careful. When quoting from (say) an academic book, it likely we are helping rather than harming sales so larger quotes (a hundred words or some such) might be appropriate. As far as your second question, it should be in total across Misplaced Pages. So basically the answer is "it depends" but pay attention to those four factors and stay well away from anything close to infringement. Hobit (talk) 17:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
• Two key pieces on the 400 word case are the intent of use and the commercial harm. The text was published specifically to scoop a competitor, and Harper & Row lost a contract because of the actions of publishing those 400 words. If WP used the same 400 words, it is very doubtful that these will ever apply. We still need to be cognizant of how much we take and we dare not set any specific levels for feat of if we are wrong. --MASEM (t) 17:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
• In addition to the key point raised by Masem, assuming there was a ratio to determine acceptable copying, it would not scale linearly. Quoting 200 words from a 250 page work would be much less of a problem then the 400 from a 500 pager work. It is also valuable to discourage unnecessary quoting. If practical text on Misplaced Pages should always be original, only in circumstances where a quote is essential for understanding the material should a direct quote be used. Monty₈₄₅ 17:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

There is no numeric rule about how much quoting does or does not constitute copyright infringement. Attempting to formulate one is a mistake, because it would have no basis in copyright law. --Carnildo (talk) 23:32, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

for lyrics, the nature of the work is important: for any poetry, copying the entire poem is usually regarded as not being fair use. It more usual to quote a stanza, or even just a fee lines. I would furthermore try to use the quote it as part of a sentence in context, not an isolated section. I tend to take a relatively expansive view of fair use, but this is one area where I am very cautious. Copyrights in popular music are enforced with particular vigilance. And in general, the acceptance of free content works such as Misplaced Pages requires scrupulous observance of other's copyright, & not trying to see how close we can come to a legal limit. That it's a fuzzy legal limit gives all the more reason for taking care. DGG ( talk ) 02:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

• I echo Dougweller and Carnildo: Don't try to infer some kind of mathematical formula. Copyright law contains no such formula.

  If you want a good guide to quoting, then I suggest this: Take quotations by good sources as your guides.. If you're writing based upon good, scholarly, sources such as history books, literary criticism books, and whatnot, then you can see what's excessive and what isn't in a quotation. You can look at how much is quoted by the sources that you're using, in their analyses of the subject at hand. You can also see whether to quote at all, in the first place.

  A case in point: The quotation from William George Walker that I added to Frederick William Sanderson is actually given, as a quote, in the source cited for that part of the article (James 2012).

  What you're doing at Táhirih is, in contrast, exactly how not to write a Misplaced Pages article. We don't construct articles by copying and pasting entire paragraphs of other people's writing on the subject. (That's, ironically, why I've been working on Frederick William Sanderson in the first place, why people are having to check every article that Thegn ever touched, and Thegn's editing privileges have been revoked.) Putting it in blockquote markup does not get around that. Blockquotes are not magic wands that free you from the necessity of conforming to the goals of Misplaced Pages: a free content encyclopaedia.

  Copying and pasting other people's writing wholesale is not writing. It's copying. Don't write articles by copying wholesale what Mangol Bayat said about the subject. Read Mangol Bayat, digest what xe has written, and write in your own words the knowledge imparted, citing Mangol Bayat as the supporting source. Better yet, read several sources on the subject, systematize and combine what knowledge they impart, write in your own words, and cite all of the sources. It took seconds for the original copy-and-paste "writer" of the prior article at Frederick William Sanderson to steal the words of Richard Dawkins and just copy and paste them into Misplaced Pages. Doing it properly, reading more than 50 books, articles, and WWW pages, and then presenting the knowledge that they impart in a systematic and encyclopaedic fashion with original prose, has taken me rather longer. But properly is how you must do it. The lazy route is the plagiarists' and copyright violators' route. Don't take it. The result is unacceptable for the project. Read; digest; and write in your own words. Or, more bluntly, as general advice: If you cannot write original free content prose, don't write at all. Don't misappropriate the non-free-content writing of other people as if it were a substitute.

  Uncle G (talk) 18:12, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Semiprotected admin talk pages

What's the deal with longterm protection of some admin talk pages I've come across? E.g. User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise is semiprotected since March, indefinitely. Misplaced Pages:Protection policy#User pages says that "User talk pages are rarely protected, and are semi-protected for short durations only in the most severe cases of vandalism from IP users." I've seen other permanently semiprotected admin talk pages without a "conspicuously linked" unprotected subpage as advised for those rare cases justifying long-term protection. So this is not about FPaS in particular. Still, I'd notify him of this discussion, if I could. --195.14.222.188 (talk) 17:15, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Given what I'm looking at the talk page log, there was a lot of personal attacks against FPaS, including the need to revdel certain additions. Semi-prot seems to be appropriate if a user's talk page is going to attract such attacks. --MASEM (t) 17:21, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Informed him. Some Admins get a lot of abuse (as do some editors), and if this is necessary it's necessary. And it's rare. Dougweller (talk) 17:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

So that also exempts an admin from linking to an unprotected subpage as the policy suggests? In that case, shouldn't the policy be updated to reflect actual practice? --195.14.222.188 (talk) 17:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I've never seen any benefit in that solution. If you have a need of protecting your house from burglars, you don't lock the front door and then put a sign on it saying "the back door is open". You could just as well leave the front door open right away. What's the difference between harassers vandalizing the one page or the other? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:38, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I guess I understand your perspective. It wouldn't make much sense to have such an unprotected subpage, much less if it's prominently linked from the main user talk. On the other hand, at least vandalism there would be out of sight of onlookers. And a bot could regularly autoblank that page to discourage the vandals/trolls. It might even help calm them down if they can act out in a secluded sandbox page within your userspace. Just a thought, but imho it would still be a net benefit to have. Then again, I speak from my perspective as constructive IP editor. For me, protected user talk pages can be very inconventient e.g. for inquiries in the case of erroneous reverts and such (no, I do not want to register, don't bother). --195.14.222.188 (talk) 19:55, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. In my specific case, my page has been the object of too much harassment from several banned users, so it has been necessary to keep it protected and will likely continue to be. Sorry about any inconvenience. To the IP: Would you care to explain under what prior account or IP you encountered me and why you had a need of contacting me? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:25, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Just stumbled upon your talk by chance. Nothing to do with you in particular. --195.14.222.188 (talk) 17:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, no problem then. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:28, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Future has an excellent point that an unprotected subpage is likely to be vandalised. There is still the issue that IP editors need to sometimes be able to contact users with protected talk pages - therefore I've updated the policy to suggest they post at WP:ANI instead in those cases - I suppose its not ideal, but there is no point in suggesting a venue which doesn't attract high-traffic and I'm not sure where would be more suitable.

It is a real issue that IP and new editors should be able to contact every editor - though obviously people shouldn't have to put up with continued abuse to allow that to happen. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:51, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I've changed the ANI header accordingly as well. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

What about pointing to the help desk instead? That might be a less intimidating option (and fewer unexpected consequences) and it is well-watched and staffed by top-notch regulars. Franamax (talk) 22:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Good idea :). I've left the header changes on ANI as is in case anyone does land up there so they aren't left in a contradictory rules situation. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:37, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to know if there's even anecdotal evidence for the claim that an unprotected subpage is as likely to be vandalized as the main talkpage, or whether it's pure speculation. I've had to communicate through unprotected subpages method now and then, and it's worked ok when it's been available in my experience, though it hasn't happened often. I do like to think that persistent trolls / vandals can figure out how to enroll and age accounts if it suits their purposes. 69.228.171.139 (talk) 09:31, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

In the case I'm talking about, I've had just about everything vandalized: my user page, my talk page, all of my talk page archives several years back, any random talkpage I had recently posted to, you name it. To see what happens if you offer this guy an unprotected page, look at the last 1,600 or so edits on pl:User talk:Beau. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:55, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Reverted ANI revision. It's already too long -- we frequently have newbies missing the notify who your talking about notice that's buried in there. Secondly, how would a newbie IP editor who finds a talk page semi'd know to go look on the ANI header to find out it's okay to post the message on ANI? Message referencing ANI should go on the semi-protected page itself. Nobody Ent 10:15, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

"2602" questionable accounts / mac addresses

Hello.

I cannot notify the user who I am expressing concern over, firstly, because I am not exactly sure what is going on here, secondly, I do not know if there is any feature on Misplaced Pages which addresses a user by a mac address under certain conditions, and therefore, the user may not be intentionally "username hopping".

If you type into the search box, User talk:2602, you will see many suggestions appear of usernames which appear to be mac addresses which begin with that number. I noticed that at least one of those addresses was blocked for BLP / neutral point of view violations. What also confuses me is that I would figure that if a sockpuppeteer was all that prolific, (s)he would not use such obvious usernames with the same prefix, which would be easily trackable, possibly indicating that the number assignment is automatic.

I'd appreciate if somebody would provide assistance with this matter to explain what is going on here and for any administrators to use their discretion to determine what is going on and what should be done. I do not know if there is any previous discussion regarding this issue. I began to notice this starting this month. Thanks. 69.155.141.125 (talk) 18:42, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Those aren't Mac addresses, they are IPv6 addresses. We are only slowly getting used to them. There have been a couple of discussions about technical and administrative issues regarding the new protocol. It's been enabled only for a few days. Basically, these are just normal anon IP editors just like you, only using the new IP system. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

So how did they edit before this was enabled? Were they unable to edit? 69.155.141.125 (talk) 19:19, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, is there a possibility that it is the same editor in the "2602" range, or is "2602" a common prefix? I'm not as familiar with these. 69.155.141.125 (talk) 19:21, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

It's a large range, I believe, and before IPv6 they were assigned a "normal" IPv4 address which they edited under, much like the one which you are using.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 19:22, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused. Are you speaking of the fact that these IP addresses have recently been enabled on the Internet, or on Misplaced Pages? Are you stating that if the server does not allow you to connect with an IP V6 address, you will automatically be connected using an IP V4 address? Thanks. 69.155.141.125 (talk) 19:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Both, actually. While IPv6 has been technically deployed for a decade, it hasn't been utilized to its fullest extent. On June 6, we had World IPv6 Launch Day whereby a coordinated effort was made to implement IPv6 for major websites worldwide. Wikimedia (Misplaced Pages's parent company) participated in this. Prior to this, IPv6 enabled end-users who accessed Misplaced Pages did so via Tunnel broker. --Jayron32 20:12, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

And they still appeared as IPv4 users (i.e. only their tunnelbroker IPv4 addresses were recorded).--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Most IPv6 users at the moment probably use a dual-protocol stack, which means they have both an IPv4 address (possibly behind NAT) and an IPv6 address. So previously they would have edited using IPv4, but as soon as we added an AAAA record for en.wikipedia.org, they were automatically switched over to IPv6. -- Tim Starling (talk) 02:21, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

2602::/24 appears to be CenturyLink, the third-largest phone and internet provider in the United States. --Carnildo (talk) 23:38, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

(for non-nerds this means 2602:00**:*) I thought AT&T had a monopoly...--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:43, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Just for reference: Very few of the pages at Special:PrefixIndex/User talk:2602 have anything at all to do with MAC addresses. (Where applicable, the bottom 64 bits of an IP version 6 address are actually modified EUI-64 addresses, not MAC addresses.) The ones without "FF:FE" across the 6th and 7th groups have nothing to do with MAC addresses, for examples. User:2602:306:C497:E409:203:93FF:FE76:6A20 has a modified EUI-64 address, as too does User:2602:306:CD10:9B50:226:BBFF:FE12:2ACD, whose IP version 6 address was derived from the MAC address 00-26-BB-12-2A-CD (a MAC address from a range assigned to Apple). User:2602:306:C5B0:920:55F8:1F6C:3C60:6FD6 has not.

And 2602:300::/24 is AT&T: by the looks of it its 6RD range, registered in June of last year. AT&T assigns prefixes of lengths 48 to 56 to its business customers. It doesn't say what it's doing for residential customers, with U-verse and the like, merely providing soothing "Yes, it will all work for you without your knowing about it." platitudes. Although the plan, at least as of two years ago and seemingly confirmed last month, was carrier-grade NAT using 10.0.0.0/8 for IP version 4 and IPv6 rapid deployment for IP version 6, trialled last year and deployed this.

Given the combination of that and what the ARIN database record says, every AT&T residential customer using 6RD is effectively getting a 60-bit-long prefix (AT&T's own 24 bits plus 32 bits for the customer's IP4 address), if things are indeed going to plan. To the customers, it means that they get the ability to use every Ethernet card in existence on their home LANs, 16 times over. To you, it means that you'll need to use /60 rather than /64 when range blocking anyone within 2602:300::/24, if you want to block every computer in their house, including the one in the little brother's room. Jonathan de Boyne Pollard (talk) 14:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

People will rarely use more than a single /64, but of course if no-one else uses a /60 it doesn't hurt.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Category:Belgian inventions

Raised at Wikipedia_talk:Categorization#Category:Belgian_inventions Andy Dingley (talk) 10:12, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

For the corps

I presume the administrative corps would want to know and perhaps give salutations when so unequivocally deserved. My76Strat (talk) 06:33, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

John Daker requesting unblock

Possible issues on Lord Roem RFA?

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

Just a quick heads-up to say that some agitation against Lord Roem (talk · contribs) over on Wikipediocracy, concerning his clerking in a current case (in which he's been fully supported by the arbitrators), seems to be having an impact on his current RFA at Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Lord Roem. It might be worth keeping an eye on it to head off any trouble at an early stage. Prioryman (talk) 19:06, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

• I wouldn't worry about it too much, it is just harmless conversation, no one is suggesting anything improper that I found. Everyone has a right to their opinions, after all. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:18, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

• Prioryman, do you feel that those Wikipediocracy discussions are influencing people to oppose his RfA, or that some of those sneaky banned users are voting in socky stealth. In other words what precise, quote, "impact" are you asserting is happening here? For the record, I post occasionally at that site but also cast a vote of support for Roem. Tarc (talk) 13:27, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

• The discussion lead me to look at his record, which seems spotless. Is that somehow bad? I might actually vote in an RfA for once.→StaniStani  13:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

• LR has withdrawn his candidature for RFA. Suggest closing this. Leaky Caldron 17:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

NetRange?

Are these, NetRange's?

• 2620:0:1CFE:28:B1BD:AEAE:38AE:D4C (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • robtex.com • Google)
• 2610:8:7800:14:20A:95FF:FED9:8FDE (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • robtex.com • Google)

I've spotted these in the past week. Strange?--Hu12 (talk) 21:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

They're IPv6 addresses. Hut 8.5 21:52, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

• This demonstrates why MediaWiki:Watchlist-details needs to have a notice about IPv6.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:03, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

It now does. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 12:56, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Need more mentors

I think I need more mentors who would frequently spend time mentoring me: here is User talk:George Ho/Mentorship discussions. Temporary or permanent, I need another mentor. --George Ho (talk) 07:02, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

• Here's a thought: If you "need more mentors", you probably shouldn't be editing. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 07:17, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
  • What do you mean? --George Ho (talk) 09:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
    • If at this point you still require mentors and "need more" of them, then I have to ask if you are competent enough to contribute to building an encyclopedia. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 09:22, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
• I don't know how to read the above comment. But anyway George, instead of seeking mentors, you may wish to take a break from big edits and just look at the contributions of other editors. I wouldn't mind if you went through my edits from my day one, and followed my sloppy steps in the mud here. Take note of how I stated edit summaries and how I dealt with other editors on talk pages, etc.--Canoe1967 (talk) 07:35, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
  • What "big edits"? --George Ho (talk) 09:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Exactly how I put it, Canoe. Anyone who asks for more mentors than they currently have is most likely not doing something right, and probably shouldn't be editing at all. Especially someone who's been around for 7 years. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 09:22, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

• • Rather than "mentors" per se, I think what George Ho really needs is someone to play devil's advocate. IIRC, George was taken to task on ANI for mass nominations of templates at TFD. For a time, there were a couple of editors bouncing advice around, but now it's gone quiet. That being said, George, I suggest you take a voluntary break from doing any nominations and spend some time studying Xfd's and understanding the rationale others are using for their nominations. In fact, since your mentor(s) aren't around, you may want to pose any queries on the talk pages of the Xfd's that you're interested in. Blackmane (talk) 09:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GoodDay closed

An arbitration case regarding User:GoodDay has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. GoodDay is indefinitely prohibited from making any edits concerning diacritics, or participating in any discussions about the same, anywhere on the English Misplaced Pages. This includes converting any diacritical mark to its basic glyph on any article or other page, broadly construed, and any edit that adds an unaccented variation of a name or other word as an alternate form to one with diacritics.
2. GoodDay is strongly warned that, in the event of additional violations of Misplaced Pages's conduct policies (especially of the nature recorded in this decision as findings of fact), substantial sanctions, up to a ban from the project, may be imposed without further warning by the Arbitration Committee.

For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 08:08, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Discuss this

WP:FS Ban lift request

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

I was banned from WP:FS before it became inactive. I would like to engage in discussions about reviving it since I have realized that I have many sound files to create (like those found on this White House page) that could use the feedback from such a group of editors. Can I have my ban lifted so that I can initiate some discussions.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Can you please explain why you were banned and why the reasons no longer apply? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

If you ask me I was banned for a bunch of racist lies that never applied. You will have to ask someone else.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:02, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Does the original discussion that led to your ban still exist on Misplaced Pages? And if so, can you link to it? elektrikSHOOS (talk) 16:05, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

It was a two part ban. I don't recall where the conversation took place, but it was either here or at WP:ANI. IIRC, I was banned because my contributions to WP:FS were above average. I.e., my nominated files passed at a higher rate than the average pass rate for the project, but since that is not good enough I was considered disruptive to FS.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Nevermind, I found it. Here's the archive of the original discussion. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 16:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

• You say the ban was based on "a bunch of racist lies". However, I don't see any mention of racism here; at first glance it looks like a discussion of real editing problems. Could you clarify? Is that the wrong ban discussion, or have I misread, or something else? If you're keen to get "many" more sounds featured, then I'm concerned that the problems which led to that ban might not have been overcome. bobrayner (talk) 16:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC) (looks like this comment was accidentally deleted in an edit conflict; I restored it manually)
  • IIRC 44 of my last 56 nominations had passed, but suddenly people started taking actions against my nominations although there was no consensus on changing the FS policies. Instead, a request was made to form a wikilynch mob.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:28, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Repeated accusations of racist lies are pretty serious. Could you point out which bits of that ban discussion are racist, please? bobrayner (talk) 16:32, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict)x2 I see no reason to even consider an unban appeal when you're so unwilling to admit any fault of your own, but instead characterize those participating in your ban discussion as racists and/or liars. Hersfold non-admin 16:36, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I have never understood why this ban was enacted. When you nominate a bunch of content for featured status and most of your nominations succeed, how is that disruptive? People objected that you were exploiting loopholes in the process — why didn't they simply start a discussion to remove said loophole rather than the one who was supposedly using it? I see no racist bits either, so the allegations are rather concerning to me, but that's no reason to defend the ban itself. Nyttend (talk) 16:35, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

• oppose unban, based on TonyTheTiger's completely baseless accusation of "racist lies" against the people active in the original ban discussion. Whatever the merits of the original ban, this is unacceptable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:41, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Can you add and subtract, at a time when my pass rate was above that of the project I was nominated to be banned for the following reason TonyTheTiger nominates anything that he thinks will have a remote change of passing, ignoring negative responses, fighting back his nominations are closed as unsuccessful, and generally clogging FS with items that don't deserve to be featured. Do you understand what racism is? That is racism.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Uhm, no. It is not. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Um, what? How is a comment that makes no reference to race whatsoever in any way racist? I think you're the one who doesn't understand what racism is, and you're only digging your hole deeper by continuing to make such allegations. Hersfold non-admin 16:48, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
      • (ec)Oh yeah. I forgot. They have to use the N-word for it to be racism.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:53, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
        • This is absurd. I'm assuming that when most people read "nominates anything that he thinks will have a remote change of passing, ignoring negative responses, fighting back his nominations are closed as unsuccessful, and generally clogging FS with items that don't deserve to be featured," they understand it as "nominates anything that he thinks will have a remote change of passing, ignoring negative responses, fighting back his nominations are closed as unsuccessful, and generally clogging FS with items that don't deserve to be featured." Not even mentioning this entire discussion happened on an online community, where most people know other people by their username and nothing else, and thus have literally no way to even know a person's race other than through voluntary admission. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 16:56, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
        • (edit conflict) @Tony: You're kinda pissing me off now. No, obviously they don't - if they were referring to people of African descent in general. For example, "Your people keep flooding FS with stuff" could be reasonably construed as racist. "Black people keep flooding FS with stuff" could be reasonably construed as racist. " keeps flooding FS with stuff" is not racist, but an allegation against that single user. Now, either provide some evidence to support why you believe the comment above was racially motivated, or withdraw your allegations of racism. If you continue to make these allegations without such evidence, I will log into my other account and block you. Hersfold non-admin 16:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Can you explain exactly how that is racist? I don't see it. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 16:50, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
      • See Racism. It was discriminatory and hurtful. Can't prove motivation.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
        • See paranoia. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 16:57, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
          • Do the math. I do not lie. My nominations were above average for the time period.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:02, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
            • I have no reason to believe you're lying about your statistics. You're not. It's easily verifiable. But that's not the issue here. I stated the issue immediately below. And this whole situation is really just proving my point. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 17:05, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. The original topic ban was not enacted for having "nominated files passed at a higher rate than the average pass rate," but for gaming the system, WP:POINT violations and a severe case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. The fact that you are here, not only saying that you don't understand the reasoning for the ban (at one point calling it a wikilynch mob), and then accusing other editors of "racist lies" where there is a recorded history (and no racist lies present) tells me that the behaviors that got you banned would likely not change and thus lifting it would be in poor form. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 16:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. I see nothing remotely racist in the ban discussion, and certainly no sign that TTT was banned from Featured Sounds because his "nominated files passed at a higher rate than the average pass rate for the project". -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:51, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I am willing to strike all comments about racism in favor of discrimination. It might not be that I am black. Maybe it is because I am too sexy or something.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:57, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
    • That's hardly an improvement, and I think you know that. Hersfold non-admin 17:02, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
      • It is actually an improvement. I can prove I was discriminated against.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
        • You've yet to do so despite multiple calls to back up your claims. Do so now, or remove all of these accusations. Hersfold 17:17, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
          • I didn't even have any idea you were black - that's how little evidence of racism there is here. Shouting "racism" whenever anything goes wrong in your life belittles those who genuinely suffer racism, and there should be no room for it here. Accusing others of racism is itself a very serious charge - so provide the proof or withdraw your accusations before someone sees fit to block you for continuing to make unfounded serious allegations against other Misplaced Pages editors. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:25, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose the whole "it's all racist lies" thing is completely unfounded in the text of anything brought up so far. I see no reason to lift a ban on a person who has such a loose grip on reality. --Jayron32 17:04, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
  • In case you weren't following along, I have retracted racist for that which can be proven. (discriminatory)--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
    • You've retracted nothing, and supported nothing with evidence. This is your final warning; put up or shut up. Hersfold 17:17, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
      • Do you consider it consistent to describe contributions that pass at an above average as "generally clogging FS with items that don't deserve to be featured"?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:26, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
        • I don't consider it to be discrimination, and certainly not racism. You've been blocked for 48 hours for your disruptive conduct here. Hersfold 17:31, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)Oppose - Jayron32 puts it perfectly. Tony, we have no clue whatsoever whether you're white, black, yellow, red, a little green man from Mars or a multi-tentacled blobby thing here on Misplaced Pages; judgements are based on the quality of your contributions and the character of your comments. And from the above I can clearly see that there is no need for the lifting of this topic ban; you refuse to admit that there could be anything at all wrong with your contributions that led to the topic ban in the first place, instead tossing out a lot of WP:NOTTHEM that, to be blunt, has no grounds in reality. The comment you link here is neither racist or discrimintory, and comes nowhere near being either by any reasonable person's definition of either term; indeed, it can only be seen as such from the viewpoint that any opposition to one's self must be that, because it couldn't possibly be yourelf - and, given that obvious attitude, there's nothing that can be done here. Take a deep breath, drink a cup of tea, and look at things from the perspective that maybe, just maybe, there might be something about your editing that was legitimate grounds for the topic ban, ask yourself "have I changed what caused these concerns?" and, if the answer is yes, ask again, without making accusations of racism or discrimination. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Jayron and everybody else here. Striking "racist" does not take away from the fact that you claimed racism first, and how this would be "discrimination" is likewise unclear (to put it diplomatically). I just re-read that entire topic ban discussion from 2011 (which I followed at the time though I did not comment), and even a year later I am baffled at how many editors of unimpeachable standing (content contributors, admins, and everything in between) you have managed to totally rub the wrong way. BTW, those concerns are still valid in other areas: reviewing one of your DYK nominations is not a pleasure but a duty.

  What this made and makes clear is that if there is discrimination it is discrimination against you, the individual disruptive editor who turns trite into DYKs and GAs etc. because there is no rule that says trite can't be promoted. It is possible that you are discriminated against because you're black, or not, or from Chicago, or more muscled than the average Misplaced Pages-editing geek, sure, but the odds are against it. Those topics bans were put in place for valid reasons with very broad agreement that they should be enacted; what's surprising is that no more serious sanctions were taken. That you don't see any of this is beyond me. Drmies (talk) 17:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

• I just got done reading the original ban discussion and, though I found the original FS ban a little extreme, I also find it extremely hard to believe that anyone with enough sense to write a complete sentence (which TTT obviously has demonstrated) can honestly, for one second, think that the ban was motivated by racism, much less voice that opinion as part of an unban request (whether you have now retracted the accusation or not is irrelevant). Therefore I think you're trolling, so I also oppose lifting the ban.Quinn 17:26, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose lifting ban - unsubstantiated accusations of "racist lies" indicate that the ban was probably well-founded, and continues to be. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:09, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Sarek, et al. Well, this went all the way bad didn't it? If Tony can show that he's able to edit in this area without disruption, then I might consider supporting some sort of provisional lifting of the ban. But not now, not like this. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 18:39, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

An Xn4 Sockpuppet investigation

It would help if there were a few more contributors to this discussion: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Xn4 so that it can be decided what to do. -- PBS (talk) 16:29, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Massive categorizing of Mormons as "American expatriates"

shows a huge number (several hundred) of Mormons being suddenly taged as being "American expatriates" without sound rationale AFAICT -- some getting listed as expatriates in 8 countries! This occureed after creation of a huge number (many hundreds) of "expatriate" categories on 13 Jun, which followed a huge number of decategorizing of notable US ambassadors, and so in in bot-like speeds. GO notified now. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:30, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

The first one I checked was an LDS Church missionary, and edit summaries for many other individuals indicate likewise. This makes sense to me. Nyttend (talk) 16:37, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

IOW, any Mormon missionary is an "expatriate" to every country he has visited as a missionary? Even wwhen it is 8 different countries? Amazing position, to be sure. I rather thought an expat was a person who left the country for an indefinite period of time and established an actual residence in a specific foreign country. And what about the listing of every Ambassador as an "expatriate" even though the embassy is legally part of the US? Can you explain those? Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:09, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Some of the cats were for LDS, but many others were for expatriate. LDS is fine, but expatriate is simply incorrect and insulting. Many of the subjects hold public office, which would be impossible if they actually were expatriates. Arzel (talk) 17:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Such classification is miles off from both the dictionary definitions and the common meaning of the terms. All included elements of banish, withdraw from allegiance etc, or something that would need to be stretched a mile to include it. Why would someone do something that goofy? North8000 (talk) 17:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

See the first sentence of the "Extraterritoriality" section of Diplomatic mission — embassy properties are legally still part of the countries in which they're located. And being in an expatriate category doesn't mean current expatriate; I've not checked, but if she's not already in one, Ellen Johnson Sirleaf needs to be added to an expatriate category because her current residence in Liberia was preceded by several years of residence in the USA. Nyttend (talk) 18:45, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

So your definition would support anyone who has spent more than a short vacation in a country as being an "expatriate"? IOW, Obama is an "Expatriate American in Indonesia" as a proper category? Really? I hate to say this - but that is an absolutely incredible position to have. Collect (talk) 18:57, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Administrative backlog