Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Casprings (talk | contribs) at 12:32, 12 May 2013 (→RFC/U for Arzel). 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 32 days ago on 15 December 2024) voorts (talk/contributions) 00:55, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Requests for comment

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

(Initiated 101 days ago on 7 October 2024) Tough one, died down, will expire tomorrow. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Initiated 71 days ago on 6 November 2024) RfC expired on 6 December 2024 . No new comments in over a week. Bogazicili (talk) 15:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Talk:Israel#RfC

(Initiated 55 days ago on 22 November 2024) Legobot has removed the RFC notice. Can we please get an interdependent close. TarnishedPath 23:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

(Initiated 9 days ago on 8 January 2025) RfC opened last month, and was re-opened last week, but hasn't received further discussion. Outcome clear and unlikely to change if it were to run the full 30 days. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 00:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Deletion discussions

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

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

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

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

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

(Initiated 16 days ago on 31 December 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Arab migrations to the Levant#Merger Proposal

(Initiated 114 days ago on 25 September 2024) Open for a while, requesting uninvolved closure. Andre🚐 22:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Winter fuel payment abolition backlash#Merge proposal

(Initiated 80 days ago on 29 October 2024) There are voices on both sides (ie it is not uncontroversial) so a non-involved editor is needed to evaluate consensus and close this. Thanks. PamD 09:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Israel–Hamas war#Survey

(Initiated 71 days ago on 7 November 2024) Looking for uninvolved close in CTOP please, only a few !votes in past month. I realise this doesn't require closing, but it is preferred in such case due to controversial nature of topic. CNC (talk) 10:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

(Initiated 20 days ago on 27 December 2024) Proposed merge discussion originally opened on 30 May 2024, closed on 27 October 2024, and reopened on 27 December 2024 following the closure being overturned at AN. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

User restoring edits of banned user and 4 years old sock-puppeteer

Hello! I want to ask the administrators about the assist given by different users to the 2-times banned user User:Stubes99, This editor had tens of socks but many times some users (in the last case User:Norden1990 ) restore the information inserted by him (sometimes we talk about mass illegal editing - entire paragraphs added by this banned user - ). What is the opinion of the admins about this situation? How is User:Stubes99 penalized if his edits are validated by his supporters and remain on the site? Stubes99 defies our community and can create a new account whenever he wants (because he owns several IP ranges) to continue his work. He is socking for 4 years - the original account is Celebration1981 and the earliest known sock account is User:Celebration81 - and no one and nothing was able to stop his editing in illegality. His status is only formally of a banned user, because in practice he can activate like any well-behaved contributor. The never ending cycle is the following: he creates a account, makes edits, he is blocked, his edits are reverted for being illegal, and then his edits are reinstated by his friends. Users like User:Norden1990 who support his edits simly encourage him to go on in his socking. I am requesting a solution for solving this.

It seems that User:Norden1990 started acting like a meatpuppet of User:Stubes99. Some days ago they started e-mail communication and now he began restoring his edits and now they very likely communicate and cooperate via e-mail.

User:Stubes99 also posted a message in Hungarian language on User talk:Hobartimus, which can be translated as "Hello! Why do not you set your profile to wikis by e-mail, which could communicate with you? Thanks for your response!" . Hobartimus is old friend of Stubes99 .

Another question: Why does not Celebration1981 a.k.a. Stubes99 appear here http://en.wikipedia.org/Category:Long-term_abuse_-_Active after 4 years of continuous socking?--Omen1229 (talk) 09:48, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Newnou, who reverted the sockpuppet's edits, was also banned, so I just brought back the article to stable version. It was strange for me that a sockpuppet remove long details from an article before banning. "It seems that", "they very likely communicate and cooperate via e-mail" - there are not appear to be evidence. I cooperated with Balkony (I did not know that (s)he is a sockpuppet, maybe I only suspected) in tha case of Central Europe where I helped to him to add statement from Western European historiographical works. --Norden1990 (talk) 10:31, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

What stable version? The stable (the last valid version) is the version before-Stubes99 and before-Newnou. User Newnou only removed the ilegal edits made by the other banned user: Stubes99 added text, Newnou deleted added text going back to the previous version, and you restored the ilegal edits. Take this example: Stubes99 added text , Newnou reverted to Fakirbakir's version and you reinstated Stubes99 edit .

The problem is that you validated the content added by a banned user, encouraging his activity. Tomorrow he will create a new account and resume his editing, knowing that you are behind him to restore his edits in case someonw will revert him.--Omen1229 (talk) 11:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Would you stop this hysteria? Newnou was also a sockpuppet, so he had no right to delete someone else's edit. Anyway, Balkony additions were sourced and referenced, using Western historiographical publications, so I checked these modifications. Indeed, in the case of Vona, I made a mistake accidentally, but it is very interesting that edit was not reverted by you, unlike the others, proving that the contents of the edits that bother you and not the user itself. --Norden1990 (talk) 12:23, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• I didn't block Balkony as a sock until 28 hours ago, if that makes a difference. I might have just missed it, but I didn't see where you have discussed the issue with the other editor before bringing it here, so I naturally have to ask if this can be handled on a talk page, particularly since we have one set of socks reverting another set of socks, so it is possible for an editor to revert to the "wrong" version, all in the best of faith. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:18, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I did not contact Norden1990 directly, because this user has done a lot false personal attacks against me and a constructive discussion( etc.) is really very difficult with this user: he called me recently "chauvinist user" or named my edits as being frustrated or chauvinist...

It seems that Norden1990 continues restoring information added by the banned user .

Unfortunately Stubes99 sockpuppet factory is working at full capacity. He created 4 new accounts in the last days: User:Drickler, User:Sovietsco, User:Rightfullruler, User:Antisockpuppeterer to restore his deleted contributions and it seems nothing can stop him. Isn't posible to find an antidote against this man? On Austria-Hungary article he has new supporters (who in fact probably don't know Stube99), who reinstated his lawless additions (full paragraphs, and tens of thousands of letters).--Omen1229 (talk) 11:09, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

It is also important that we find a solution against Iaaasi, whose activity is harmful for the Misplaced Pages. Dear Omen, a constructive discussion is not difficult with me, see lot of cases in my talkpage. I reserve the indicatives about you, I'm sorry, but your activity is very similar to Iaaasi's. --Norden1990 (talk) 12:15, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Note - Norden1990, comparing any other editor with a sock is not constructive. If you have anything to complain about Omen1229 please use the wikipedia channels(boards or similar) to clear that up, otherwise your comment can be interpreted as an act of bad faith. Also you are not a new user not to know that you should NOT preserve SOCK edits. It is important to stop all socks, but in this case User:Stubes99 since he created this problem. Adrian (talk) 19:23, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

About this problem (sock edits) as according to wikipedia rules (WP:SOCK and ]) should be reverted. Because if we let this edits remain, in fact we are allowing a banned user to contribute and participate as a legitimate user. As for this particular case I am a little torn, because this is one of the few User:Stubes99 constructive, non-partisan edits. But this may be the case of "good hand - bad hand" (WP:GHBH). If we were to respect the wikipedia rules the data should be removed immediately, but in this case I don`t know what to do. The best way is to let some experienced administrator decide what to do. Greetings. Adrian (talk) 19:23, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I would like to hear some administrator clarifying this situation because this is starting to became and edit war on many articles. Some users are adding some SOCK data, some removing. If someone could explain clearly what to do in this situations. Thank you. Adrian (talk) 21:28, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• If reverting one sock's edit will just put another sock's edit back into place, just use your best judgement. Reverting socks is a goal, but the bigger goal is having a correct and proper article. The best rule of thumb to use is "what is best for the article?", then do that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:29, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed about this. There is usually little point in trying to determine the exact history. In a situation like that being described, edits that are good should be kept, and bad ones reverted. Whoever in getting the article to a satisfactory state is responsible for ensuring that it is in fact satisfactory. DGG ( talk ) 03:02, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Temporary notification system

I am going to enable a default gadget that will pop up when you receive a notification. I do this because there is a valid concern new editors may not notice the standard red blip on top of the screen. While there is consensus that some form of notification alert is needed, the current discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Notifications/New message indicator is going downhill fast.

For more information, see Misplaced Pages:Notifications/Popup documentation. — Edokter (talk) — 00:31, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Is someone also going to bring back typewriters, the quill and ink, messenger pigeons, and horse and buggies? That's the kind of mentality we are dealing with here. With a community as afraid of change as this, it's really a wonder they can use a computer. I'll be awaiting a reply with a coconut shell tied to a string... Misplaced Pages is going to be left far behind if they keep up this stubborn, "I won't allow any changes" attitude. Viriditas (talk) 01:18, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

(ec) It's a wonder we're not still using the classic skin. — Edokter (talk) — 01:19, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

If you are interested in what's really going on here, see Resistance (philosophy). Viriditas (talk) 01:24, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

You're still walking on two legs, no? Have you tried breathing through your ass? It's different so it must be progress. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 01:32, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

You've missed the point by a few light years. We did not always walk on two legs. The opposition to creativity on this site will be its downfall. Viriditas (talk) 01:43, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely no creativity in that move. Just the urge to change for change's sake. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 01:48, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

It's one of the most creative acts in proto-human history. Necessity is the mother of invention. You appear to be using a different definition of creativity than I am. Viriditas (talk) 01:50, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Removing the orange bar on wikipedia is proto-human history? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 01:51, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Whatever are you talking about? It was very clear what I was talking about. Viriditas (talk) 01:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

And it was very clear what I said. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 01:55, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, if you were speaking dolphinese to a chimpanzee underwater riding a whale. Totally clear. Viriditas (talk) 01:58, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

For the record, this new gadget has very little to do with the orange bar... Ignatzmice•talk 01:20, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

It's even uglier than the bar, if that were possible :) But it does the job. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I wanted to keep it as simple as possible by using the exixting mw.notify framework, which does not allow extensive styling. — Edokter (talk) — 01:34, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

No complaints. Sometimes ugly is good. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:47, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

And, sometimes ugly is beautiful. Or as it is usually known, "exotic". :) Viriditas (talk) 01:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Appreciate that it comes with easy to follow instructions to turn off, and hopefully will address the OBOD concerns. NE Ent 09:18, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I am one who uses Classic view on XP, and Monobook here. I do so because I find them the clearest and easiest to use. I am all in favour of progress. I just wish that people would stop equating change with progress. Hitler's appointment as Chancellor certainly initiated change. Was it progress? Vista was change. was that progress? Progress requires change. But not all change IS progress. Peridon (talk) 17:39, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Give the man a cigar, he wins the "First to name Hitler in an entirely unrelated discussion" award. --Jayron32 15:38, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but I don't smoke. That was deliberate, as was the bringing in of Vista... Peridon (talk) 20:28, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Facetiously pretending to be extremist and being misinterpreted as genuine? Yet another internet law holds true. If you can work Rule 34 into this somehow, you get the Triple Crown and earn the utter respect of all who kneel before you... --Jayron32 23:55, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

CAT:EP badly backlogged

...in the same vain, Category:Misplaced Pages protected edit requests is also badly backlogged, with latest unanswered request dated 25 April. No such user (talk) 06:41, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I've been working on it. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:43, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Admin dashboard stats box

It contains 'Users blocked' and 'Users reblocked'. Is there any good reason why it doesn't contain 'Users unblocked' as well? Peridon (talk) 17:27, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

That's a damn good question. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:22, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

The person to ask this damn good question of is User talk:cyberpower678, who runs User:cyberbot I which is used to update the Admin stats box. --Jayron32 19:41, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

He's looking into it. Peridon (talk) 14:32, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes I am. After I'm done the things that need to be done in real life first. I've actually considered adding a bunch of new things.—cyberpower _{Limited Access} 17:48, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

As long as they're damn good. Drmies (talk) 18:58, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

It's so damn good, that you would give a damn about it. :p—cyberpower _Offline 19:38, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey, I just have a reputation as a big meanie, so I wouldn't mind having a admin stat that lets everyone know how nice I can be (if there's a damn good reason to be) Beeblebrox (talk) 20:44, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Site ban discussion for User:Evlekis

• Evlekis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

WP:RFPP is blowing up with requests to semi-protect articles by now-indefblocked Evlekis, who appears to have more IPs at their disposal than you can shake a stick at; see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Evlekis. Besides the usual Balkanist disruption, they're also hounding Peacemaker67 and Bobrayner. I think a formal ban would be a nice signal that this behavior is unacceptable; in addition, I would like that self-congratulatory MySpace social networking thing they put up in the place of a talk page deleted: an editor with such a blatant disregard for the rules here has no right to put a family album (children, exes, resumes, their life's work) on our beautiful website. Drmies (talk) 15:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• I've been very active with the case, reverting, protecting, blocking, tagging and deleting, which is easy enough since his edits are hard to miss. Keep in mind, he has a one year AE ban for violating his topic ban concurrent with his indef for socking the first time, via User:Sandstein. This is a bit earlier than usual for a site ban, but it is rather unusual circumstances, with a large amount of collateral damage. He does seem to have gone to the dark side of the force, to which there is no return. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:37, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I appreciate the blanking, Dennis. Drmies (talk) 18:57, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

there is certainly more than enough scope for an ARBMAC discretionary sanctions site ban (given he topic banned under ARBMAC before he was indefinitely blocked and began evading) or even a community site ban. It might make it clearer to him that his behaviour in evading his block and topic ban is completely unacceptable. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 15:44, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• Commenting as the administrator who imposed the recent AE sanctions and the block for their violation via socking, it does appear to me that the sockpuppetous block/ban evasion by this user has reached the degree at which a community site ban is normally imposed, though it doesn't have any substantial additional effect. My understanding is that a site ban can't be imposed as a discretionary sanction, only a topic ban, which already exists.  Sandstein  15:49, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

my mistake. I thought that even a site ban was available under the "or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project" provision, but I'll butt out. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 15:54, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

No need to butt out, its hard enough for seasoned admin to keep up with all policies on this. Even I called in Sandstein because he knows Arb issues better than I ever will. Site bans are only enacted by a motion by Arb (long, time consuming, etc.) or by a formal proposal here at WP:AN. As Sandstein has pointed out, there is little practical difference since he is already indef blocked for socking, concurrent with a Discretionary Sanction block for a full year. Anyone can automatically revert his edits on site without violating 3RR, we automatically mass nuke his new articles and edits as soon as we find them, which is very quickly. If you see other socks, file at SPI and feel free to ping me. I've worked all his sock cases so I'm familiar enough to take rapid action blocking/protecting/nuking/denying. That is the most effect method of dealing with it, removing all rewards in the behavior. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:42, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Copy that. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:48, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

The blatant socking is, at this point, essentially trolling and a site ban discussion is just feeding the beast. And the page blanking is obviously punitive and petty. Whoever closes this should count this vote as either a support or oppose (whatever allows us to declare consensus and move on sooner.) NE Ent 02:10, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Nothing petty about it, Ent. Thank you for your insights. Also, Zwarte Riek is still, despite your best intentions, a red link. Drmies (talk) 02:16, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Imagine you're a non-editor reader browsing Jelena Dokic. You notice the talk tab, and, out of curiosity click. You see a note signed "Evlekis 11:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC) Евлекис", and click the hyperlinked name. You can either end up at previous or current. Which is going make you more interested in being part of the Misplaced Pages community? It's like taking an exit off the highway. Will ending up in a neighborhood with chain link fences and bars on the windows or one with open lawns and kid's bikes lying on the lawns make you more inclined to stop for a bite to eat at the corner? The fact that Zwarte Riek is redlinked doesn't concern me nearly as much as the quarter million "unreferenced" templates. Doc M and I could both edit every day for the rest of our lives and never get through the list. If a sock is messing with content and targeting a fellow editor I'm more than happy to do some rolling back , but when it comes badge o' shame and threads about how horrible an eight year, 22,000 mainspace editor is -- not interested. Think about what messages what we say and do to imperfect editors sends. NE Ent 11:42, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
    • • Those tags are used daily, multiple times, by SPI clerks. I rely on them for the links to get to cases and lists of socks. Seriously, I use those every single day, they aren't put there as a badge of shame, they are an administrative tool. And what does having 22k mainspace edits have to do with anything? Are you suggesting we treat someone with 100 mainspace edits differently? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:44, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
• Ent, I'm disappointed that you would call my actions punitive and petty. If you go and look, I put the standard SOCKMASTER tag on his page, as I do every Master who has confirmed socks at SPI. It is built into our scripts for clerking there, and automatically blanks the page and adds that tag. Every single master is always tagged, as is every single puppet on every single case I've ever worked, and clerks are instructed to do exact this. I've even gone out of my way discussing with the master, trying to resolve the issue, on my talk page. Your assumptions are way off base here, and are a bit of a slap in the face. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 10:54, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
• I'd agree with editors above that the behaviour has reached the point where the community would be talking about a ban; but there's a second point; a ban wouldn't actually make much different to how we treat disruptive editing. As the target of hundreds of venomous Evlekis edits (I'll skip the usual string of diffs), my gut feeling might be to say "We need a site ban! And a community ban! We need super-duper stricter sanctions!" but that cannot improve on the status quo, where disruptive edits are rolled back or revdel'd, attack pages are speedy-deleted, and socks are blocked. bobrayner (talk) 13:37, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
• A typical site ban discussion. The case itself is turned into a "discussion" of how really pointless banning any editor truly is. Politics. Doc talk 13:51, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary, his activity has completely subsided following the range blocks I set yesterday. Had someone pinged me about range blocks (I never add SPI cases to my watch list), this discussion almost certainly wouldn't have arisen, yet no one even asked if they were possible, regrettably. WilliamH (talk) 14:01, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I for one think its a shame that it came to indefinitely blocking a longterm editor who seemed to edit positively until this all went down. Perhaps this is a lesson that more care needs to be taken before imposing indefinite blocks. More often than not it turns the user into a vandal or sock. Frankly from what I have seen in this case there was a lot of negative actions done by the individual and several of the admins involved. Kumioko (talk) 16:01, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Had this not been an AE, necessitating Sandstein get involved, then I likely would have talked with him (as I have since the block) and tried to work out a way for him to come back in short order. He still can come back, but it is up to him to pull back, cool down, and start a dialog about how we move forward from here. That he has DS block does complicate things, however, as only Sandstein or Arb can really lift that. As long as he is venting, it isn't likely to happen. Lifting the socking portion of the block isn't problematic and could have been done by any admin. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 18:11, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree it would have been better if it wasn't taken to AE. Nothing good ever comes out of an AE discussion unless the person is an admin and/or is completely uninvolved in the case at all. Since my opinions of Arbcom and AE are well known to be extremely low it shouldn't surprise you when I say that I I have no faith at all that regardless of the users conduct Arbcom, Sandstein nor anyone else related to AE (which is really only Sandstein anyway) will lift the ban. Sandstein nor Arbcom are known to be forgiving and once they make a decision they treat it like a prison term with no parole. I have a lot of respect for some of the Arbcom members as individuals and editors but no respect whatsoever in the process of AE or Arbcom and I think WP would be better off without it. With that said, I agree that I hope that the user cools down a little and takes a break. No good will come from them turning into a vandal (something all too tempting when one has been expelled from the community). Kumioko (talk) 19:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

If it hadn't been taken to AE, then the pov-pushing (and every tool used to support pov-pushing: Deception, BLP abuses, misuse of sources, sockpuppetry, canvassing &c) would have continued as before. In what way would that be a better outcome? The main problem started long before the AE case; AE just documented it and brought it to the community's attention. Subsequent vandalism is more visible - and less harmful - than the systematic distortion of many articles. There are a couple of other editors in the Balkans who might also have earned a trip to AE, but I'm not keen on starting drama right now. bobrayner (talk) 21:15, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. There is nothing good that AE does for the project. For what its worth I have been reading over it for the last couple hours and I don't like the way you handled it either. Your comments are a clear exhageration of the case but unfortunately no one here is going to take the time to look into it so it appears you win. Kumioko (talk) 21:52, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Abuse and disruption

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

• CTF83! Alt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:CTF83! Alt just came out of literally nowhere a few moments ago. He didn't like particular edits that were sourced on an article and removed extensive amounts of material by referring to it all as crap, spelt "grap" mind you, as shown here . Before I could even send him a polite message that the extensive amounts of material he was removing as "grap" was all well sourced (which was my original intention), he came to my talkpage and initiated a discussion about it with the following: "Please stop adding the list of disguise, it's unnecessary crap that clutters the page!" (as shown here: ). That's when I literally lose it and tell him to stop coming to my talkpage with the funky attitude and that I was reporting him immediately for abuse and disruption. He told me to 'go for it.'

I'm a little confused by this user and his talkpage because it reads: "This account is a legitimate sockpuppet of User:CTF83!, for use on mobile and other computers. If this account misbehaves or acts suspiciously, please have it blocked, immediately!"

Is he a sockpuppet of another user? AmericanDad86 (talk) 00:41, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Notice that user's highly rude edit summary here and especially this one with a personal attack added on. If someone asking you to please stop adding crap sets you off, you need to go somewhere else. You clearly need to read Misplaced Pages:Fancruft. Oh, and learn the difference between a talk page a user page. CTF83! 00:58, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I didn't know what your talkpage was. This user has talkpage speaking on himself or his account as a sockpuppet and that he may or may not abuse accounts; then his talkpage has something about no internet at home with nothing else on it. If you'll look at his talkpage and userpage, surely you'l l see overwhelming abnormality leading to confusion.

Anyways, if you are removing material, especially large amounts of material here at Misplaced Pages, you take it to the talkpage first and initiate a discussion with the proper respect. Not only that, you are to make legitimate edit summaries with legit reason. Relying on bratty remarks like 'that's crap' then coming to my usertalk page with those same remarks is unacceptable. And if you think I'm going to sit idly by while you talk crazy to me, you're sadly mistaken. Anyways, I had actually intended to start a discussion on the article's talkpage with this user before I got this crazy message sent to me talking about remove crap and all this other business. He's clearly begging for attention and desired this quarrel.AmericanDad86 (talk) 01:22, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not required to discuss any edits, WP:BOLD. You have a lot to learn here CTF83! 01:50, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Also I've never been blocked for a personal attack, like you, 3 months after you joined, so you clearly have a problem with that, I haven't gotten one block for that in almost 7 years on here. CTF83! 01:56, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I've looked through this user's editing history and it looks like he delights in a rude, off-putting approach to his editing: . He has deleted and archived much of his talkpage so it's hard to tell beond his editing history. As I said, stop talking crazy. You will not come to my talk page talking about 'don't put crap' on Misplaced Pages, you will not tell me what I have to learn about about, etc. You do not disrespect me. Now I don't know the manner in which you're used to editing with others around here, but you'll revise it when you deal with me. Otherwise, you can expect to find yourself right back here on the Administrative Noticeboards each and every time and that's a promise.AmericanDad86 (talk) 02:02, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

You talk big for someone who doesn't know anything about Misplaced Pages...again personal attack blocks on me in 7 years? 0 Personal attack, blocks on you in 5 months? 1...who has the real civility issue here? CTF83! 02:17, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm actually quite surprised the edit I found in the user's editing history didn't lead to an immediate block. The issue in question is now quite irrelevant to me. I'm now even more outraged over this: where he uses racial slurs against Black people and Jews because someone had the "nerve" to edit the word homosexual into a page referring to people who are attracted to the same sex. His edit summary response was: "homosexual is an offensive term, you wouldn't allow nigger or kike would you." I'm actually an African American and am extremely outraged by this user's edit summary slurs and over someone saying something like 'homosexual' which is not a slur. And not only that, but not even used in an offensive fashion if you look at the edit. His response was gross. AmericanDad86 (talk) 02:21, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Yea, the discussion closes when I find something blatantly offensive about Black people that deserves a block. Figures. Another complaint I'll be taking up with higher authority. Blatantly racist edit summary ignored. AmericanDad86 (talk) 02:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Problems with apparent attack account

An account User:SamEAntar appears to have been created as an attack on Sammy Antar, who was apparently involved in criminal dealings with the defunct Crazy Eddie electronics chain in New York. The account made some edits to the article, which I do not know the accuracy of (also made some edits under an IP address, which was mentioned in a comment on the article talk page that I deleted). The person behind the account claims to be Sam Antar, however based on what he posted to his own userpage, I think that is extremely dubious and the person is perhaps either a disgruntled former employee or stockholder of the company. In any case, it is extremely unlikely the account is operated by Sammy Antar, which makes the whole thing a massive BLP violation. So can someone look into the accounts edits, revdel any BLP violating edits, delete the userpage and block the account? - Who is John Galt? ✉ 15:16, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• I've deleted the user page--that was easy. Thanks. The rest of your charge will have to be addressed by someone smart; also, I'm clocking out for now. Drmies (talk) 15:32, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The account hasn't edited in 2 years. Yeah, probably an impersonation account, but because of time-since-editing, what protection are we doing? I'm all in favour of revdel'ing BLP-violating things if you give us diffs to ones that need it (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:12, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion candidates not showing up in maintenance categories

Could one or more administrators please re-assess/delete Template:Infobox People, Template:INFOBOX PERSON, Template:Infobox KVOE-AM and Template:8TeamBracket-Best of Five Playoffs Except F, all of which are looping templates either redundant or not usefully employed, and which I nominated under CSD T3 two weeks ago, but which are strangely absent from Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as unused redundant templates?
Also, near the top of my category namespace edits, there is a collection of about 30 categories that I tagged for C1 at the end of last month, and which are still empty, but which don't seem to have made it as far as Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as empty categories. Could these also please be processed? SuperMarioMan 17:56, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I deleted {{Infobox KVOE-AM}} since it was unused. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:51, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry, I overlooked Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion. SuperMarioMan 21:41, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Community ban for 50.72.161.19

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

I am requesting that a vote on a siteban of 50.72.161.19 be put in place for threats and personal attacks. --72.65.238.157 (talk) 00:35, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

IP addresses are not banned. A registered account may be banned, and an IP sock of a banned editor may be blocked, but an IP, standing alone, is not banned. In this instance, you're talking about a dynamic IP address who is currently blocked for personal attacks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:47, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Technically, they can be but they usually aren't. To clear things up, this is an old IP (50.72.161.19), and they are using 50.72.139.25 now, which is already blocked by Drmies. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:52, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• When has an IP ever been banned without being connected to a registered account? I looked at WP:BAN, and it addressed the issue only by implication. I also looked at the list of banned users and couldn't find any banned IP addresses (perhaps I missed one?). It also makes no sense to me for a dynamic IP, although I suppose it makes a little more sense for a static IP.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:56, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Editors, not accounts (registered or not) are banned. NE Ent 02:13, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Wasn't an editor with a dynamic IP address banned as a result of a discussion here a few months ago? Nick-D (talk) 02:40, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I can confirm that this has indeed happened, though it is rare. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:50, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

There were two as far as I remember. One was the German ref desk troll and the other was one know as Tailsman67 who only used IPs but would sign with that name. Both were banned without ever having an account to ban. Blackmane (talk) 08:27, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Is this IP going to be site banned? There's no LTA report, no sockpuppet reports: nothing. No evidence that a site ban is even worth discussing here, really. Let's move on, shall we? Doc talk 09:46, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Besides the ban some months ago, an IP editor even had his own arbitration case and got banned as a result. Nyttend (talk) 10:40, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm too lazy to look it up, but I argued the same thing "you can't ban ips", but was told we can, and they did ban the editor behind the IP. I still don't see the advantage. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 10:42, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

This is for the talk page on the banning policy. Start the ban vote here based on the IP's suggestion. That's why the thread is here. Doc talk 10:51, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

3 month backlog

Just wanted to let people know that there is a 3 month backlog over at Misplaced Pages:Possibly unfree files#Holding cell. Ramaksoud2000 02:05, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, after six years on Commons I consider myself kind of experienced with files, but the in the first five discussions I opened in this backlog I could not come with any reasonable decision.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:20, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, debates about the freeness of an image can drag on for months on Commons. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:25, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Sofort and WP:OUTING | attacked by cross-wiki trolls User:Tehranpizzaparlor

Tehranpizzaparlor (talk · contribs)

Akhshurush (talk · contribs)

Lavasooni (talk · contribs)

Lavasoon (talk · contribs)

پسر کوهستان (talk · contribs)

2.176.36.62 (talk · contribs)

2.176.30.119 (talk · contribs)

2.176.3.175 (talk · contribs)

and ip...,...,

Hello, I was attacked by cross-wiki trolls for what I did in Persian Misplaced Pages, (all this user and all IP here) - (1) and (2) and all ip and user edit (Here) The IP range is so big that global blocking isn't possible (as one of stewards said) and these links contain my personal information and very insulating swears (In Persian). so please hide these revisions and protect my user page for except autoconfirmed users

Diskussion: (My En.wiki history) - (Admin En.wiki Request) - (Fa.wiki Request) - (History) - (Lavasani ID)

Thanks.فلورانس (talk) 13:11, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

There has been some cleaning up, some blocks, and some protection. Possibly enough. We probably need someone who speaks Farsi to identify any remaining unwanted edits. -- zzuuzz 08:22, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages bug in category statements in templates

Graham87 11:58, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• Someone requested Template:Korea Baseball Organization to be history-merged to Template:Baseball in South Korea. This request put Template:Korea Baseball Organization in Category:Candidates for history merging, and as an unwanted side effect, that put into Category:Candidates for history merging also 3 articles that transclude Template:Korea Baseball Organization :: these 3 articles are Kia Tigers and Korea Baseball Championship and List of baseball stadiums in South Korea. At 09:19, 10 May 2013 I obeyed that histmerge request. But now, nearly 2 days after, those 3 articles still show as members of Category:Candidates for history merging, although they never needed history-merging. It looks like that somewhere a buffer needs to be flushed. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:59, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
• Those 3 articles are still showing now as members of Category:Candidates for history merging. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:00, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I've done a null edit on each of the three articles, and that has fixed the problem. In this case it's a much quicker way of fixing it than waiting for the job queue to deal with it. Graham87 11:58, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Daniel L. Barth

I think I need some help here... Daniel L. Barth — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scientific Alan 2 (talk • contribs) 20:04, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Deleted, editor indef'ed. WP:LTA->WP:RBI. DMacks (talk) 20:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Alan Greger likes this Scientific Alan 2 20:18, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Please take a look

I'm at a bit of loss to understand why no action has been taken on this and this over on ANI. The former (which I !voted in) seems like it has reached an actionable consensus, while the latter appears as if some kind of warning would be appropriate.

Could some bold admin please take a look before these two items scroll off the board? Thanks, Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:57, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Help please! Second opinion(s) requested, from uninvolved admin(s)

In February my tendentious editing behavior on talk pages was the subject of an AN:

• Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive245#Continued_tendentious_editing_by_Born2cycle

I recognize I continue to have an issue with this, as I have difficulty limiting my contributions to discussions that I'm interested in. Anyway, that AN was closed by TParis (talk · contribs) with the following fair and reasonable decision:

Born2Cycle is under a limited discussion ban at the discretion of an uninvolved admin when his behavior becomes counter productive to the discussion. Meaning: An uninvolved admin may ban him from a particular discussion he is involved in on a case by case basis after a warning that can be enforced with a block between 24 hours and the duration of the discussion he is disruptive in. This includes discussions about the close of a move or article titles discussion anywhere on Misplaced Pages.

I thought that was very fair because then if I engage in my problematic behavior again in some discussion, I can be notified with a warning from an uninvolved admin, and will stop.

So, I have been going along with no issues, or so I thought. That is, no uninvolved admin has issued any warnings to me. However, my behavior at a recent RM discussion became discussed, and now another admin is considering blocking me for 30 days from all RM discussions, even though that discussion was closed weeks ago, the block would go far beyond the parameters set in that AN, and there is no current issue. This seems purely punitive to me. Is that fair and appropriate?

This admin is going to go through with the block unless he hears objections from uninvolved admins. Hence my plea for help here. The discussion where the 30 day block of me has been proposed is here:

• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Result_concerning_Dicklyon.

My attempts to discuss this with the other admin are here:

• User_talk:Gatoclass#Talk:Suicide_of_Kelly_Yeomans

Thanks in advance. --B2C 21:42, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Quoting: "Born2cycle made 69 comments over the course of ten days at Talk:Suicide of Kelly Yeomans", which is kind of why WP:Don't bludgeon the process was created. It might be hard to get sympathy here considering the amount of bludgeoning you did, and the way you brought it here likely violates WP:CANVASSING. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 22:36, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I had hatted the comment as canvassing, but User:MisterShiney undid my edit, for no good reason. (MS: Non-admins can close discussions here, there's no restriction on it.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:33, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Only because it was up for just over half hour before you slapped it with a canvassing label - incorrect in my opinion, rightly so the user is asking for a second opinion on the actions of an admin which is well within their remit. I am aware of no such policy/guideline that says as a non admin §you are allowed to close a discussion before it has been addressed. Hence the revert. MisterShiney ✉ 23:51, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Hate to disagree with both of you, but non-admin can close discussions. And it was hatted, not closed, something we usually reserve for WP:DENY, offtopic threads or really long evidence. We admin are immune to Jedi mind tricks, so seeing the plea won't poison our minds. Actually, hatting makes it more likely to be read by more people. None of us can resist Pandora's box. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 00:14, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Good point, but what does that say about the effectiveness of WP:DENY? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:56, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
    • "We admin are immune to Jedi mind tricks." I made you say that. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:06, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
    • That it has limited utility. It's only done to hide the "trophy" of their actions, since it will then always be out of plain sight. It is just to remove the troll's and/or sock's incentive, which is part of why some do lolz. It is a Jedi mind trick that is a little better than not hatting it. The only reason we don't outright delete it is that we want the info in the archive, so we can search for it in the future, if needed. That is my experience anyway, there are some other perspectives and uses, too. I sometimes hat offtopic subthreads, (this subthread might qualify) to keep the continuity of the merits intact. Particularly in long, complicated reports. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 01:10, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

If anyone is interested in the original problem the editor posted about, please note I have posted a comment at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. -- Dianna (talk) 05:06, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Well posting at AE should solve the problem all right. Sandstein will ban them for life! Kumioko (talk) 10:19, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

RFC/U for Arzel

There is currently community support for a topic ban for user:Arzel, here. During the topic ban discussion it was suggested that RFC/U might be a good idea. The main issue, editing for the tea party movement, became an WP:Arbitration case. During the workshop, it was also suggested that WP:RFC/U might be a good idea, here. However, while I have engaged him on his talk page, I can't think of an issue in which another editor has engaged with me on an issue. Therefore, I don't think I can meet the minimum standards to file a dispute. However, since there is community support for a ban and because it was suggested this might be a good option, is there anyway to do a RFC/U on user:Arzel without meeting the standard.Casprings (talk) 22:21, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

No. Multiple venues for such arguments are a chronophagous exercise. If ArbCom does not see fit for a sanction on a specific user, then the "multiple lines of attack" system is a tad unfair. Collect (talk) 23:30, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

There is a very clear consensus for a topic ban among editors. The edits that are problematic are a much wider range than simply the tea party. One should not ignore community consensus. However, the current case only deals with the tea party. However, Arzel's edits should be examined in full and not just his edits that deal with the tea party. With such a strong community consensus, we have need to explore his edits. Casprings (talk) 03:19, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

You probably can open an RfC/U without meeting the "minimum standards" if the user agrees to it. In this case, I don't think it's wise though. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 01:43, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Why?Casprings (talk) 02:12, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment I went ahead and started a conversation on it at the Arbitration case, here.

This appears to be a retaliation for this. Arzel (talk) 05:27, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment At the Arbitration request page, User:AGK, a member of the arbitration committee responded with, "we are broadly trying to confine our examination to the TPM article and very closely related pages. You are therefore correct to suggest that more general problems with the conduct of a party should be dealt with outwith this case and in the usual venues." If it isn't to be a WP:RFC/U than it should be something. A community consensus that is as large as the one against Arzel cannot simply be ignored.Casprings (talk) 12:17, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment It has been suggest the WP:RFC/U is the wrong tool to use here. I would think something that did this,

What RfC/U CANNOT do is:

• Impose/enforce involuntary sanctions, blocks, bans, or binding disciplinary measures;

What RfC/U CAN do is:

• Allow a number of users to collaborate in discussing wider issues they see with a particular editor's conduct.
• Allow an editor who is the subject of an RFC/U to understand the problems, and change or explain their conduct.
• Allow users to share information which might be relevant for later steps in the dispute resolution process, should that become necessary.

}}

• An RfC is a tool for developing voluntary agreements and collecting information.
• An RfC may bring close scrutiny on all involved editors. In most cases, editors named in an RfC are expected to respond to it. The Arbitration Committee closely considers evidence and comments in RfC if the editors involved in the RfC are later named in a request for arbitration.
• See also RfC/U rules.

would be just what the doctor ordered. Flush out if there are actuall problems, help Arzel understand the problems, and go from there. Am I missing something?Casprings (talk) 12:32, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Administrative backlog