Misplaced Pages

:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:23, 9 March 2021 view sourceOhnoitsjamie (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Administrators261,239 edits concise← Previous edit Latest revision as of 21:18, 9 January 2025 view source DuncanHill (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers163,224 edits →Non-EC editor editing ARBPIA, broadly construed.: IP now making similar edits 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{pp-vandalism|small=yes}}
{{short description|Notices of interest to administrators}}
<noinclude><!-- Inside the noinclude, because this page is transcluded. -->{{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Header}} <noinclude><!-- Inside the noinclude, because this page is transcluded. -->{{User:MiszaBot/config
|algo = old(7d)
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|algo = old(6d) |counter = 368
|counter = 330
|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive%(counter)d |archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive%(counter)d
|maxarchivesize = 700K |maxarchivesize = 700K
Line 9: Line 8:
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |minthreadstoarchive = 1
|minthreadsleft = 0 |minthreadsleft = 0
}}{{short description|Notices of interest to administrators}}{{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Header}}</noinclude><!--S
}}</noinclude>
<!--S
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis {{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
|header={{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}} |header={{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
Line 21: Line 19:
|maxarchsize= 700000 |maxarchsize= 700000
}} }}
--> --><!--

{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive index|mask=Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive<#>|leading_zeros=0|indexhere=no}}<!--
---------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------
New entries go down at the *BOTTOM* of the page, not here. New entries go down at the *BOTTOM* of the page, not here.
---------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------


--><noinclude> --><noinclude>


==Open tasks== ==Open tasks==
<noinclude>{{Centralized discussion|float=left|compact=very}}
{{Administrators' noticeboard archives}}
{{Clear}}
{{Admin tasks}} {{Admin tasks}}
__TOC__
</noinclude><!--Here because there's a bug in mobile, please don't remove-->


== Sander.v.Ginkel unblock request ==
== Pages recently put under ] ==
{{collapse top|bg=#F0F2F5|Report}}
{{User:MusikBot/ECPMonitor/Report}}
{{collapse bottom}}
== Lab leak COVID conspiracy theory, again ==


The following is copied from ] on behalf of {{u|Sander.v.Ginkel}}:
* {{pagelinks|COVID-19 misinformation}}
{{tqb|I have made serious mistakes. I regret it and say sorry for it. I fully understand why I have been blocked. My biggest mistake that I copied-pasted content from articles to other articles, that led to a BLP violation. I have also misused other accounts as suckpuppets: ] and ] (note that the two other accounts –- ] and ] -- at ] was not me. ) In addition, my work was too focused on quantity, rather than quality. I apologize to those who had to do some cleaning up for me.
* {{pagelinks|COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis}} (& see ), recent ] creation written by now-tbanned editor
* {{pagelinks|Wuhan Institute of Virology}}
* {{pagelinks|Investigations into the origin of COVID-19}}


Whay do I want to come back? And do I deserve it? I can show that I can make constructive content. I made some edits and created pages under the IP address 82.174.61.58, that was not allowed; and was blocked. It is not good that I made edits under an IP address, but I appreciated that some users (], ], ]) stated they liked the content I created and/or that they offer the opportunity to have me back (see at ]). I made the same mistakes on the Dutch Misplaced Pages (where I misused the same accounts). At this Misplaced Pages I bot back my account and I am editing the Wikipeida I’m also editing at simple.wikipedia.org (see ]). I have created over 900 pages (see ]), (1 page being deleted). I like to create articles from historic work on old sources, for instance ], ], ], ] or the event ] that is barely mentioned at the English ]. Around 100 pages have been (literally) copied to the English Misplaced Pages by several users. I'm also editing Wikidata, see ] and ].
This particular topic has been plagued with SPAs and POV pushing, the main one was recently topic banned, unbanned and rebanned (see: ]), and discussed at AN/ANI a few times. This is a long discredited conspiracy theory by consensus of scientists and all peer-reviewed publications, and most recently by . The SPAs are mostly relying on regular preprints published by two authors, Rossana Segreto & Yuri Deigin (such as ). It's all based on crappy sourcing (eg preprints & ] ) and misrepresentations of existing sources. Today was published referencing the POVFORK page, which may explain the recent influx of newly created SPAs trying to push the theory, but they've been pretty relentless for months anyway.


However, as I have learned from it, I will never use multiple accounts anymore and adding controversial content without doing a proper fact-check. I will always listen to users, be constructive and be friendly. I will make sure you will not regret giving me my account back. I would like to work under the account ].}}
There is an active GS in the topic. Can we get some administrative action here? This stuff is beyond tiring now. As soon as lengthy meaningless walls of text are debated on one talk page, folks move on to the next talk page and restart the conversation from scratch, or create new fringe articles. This isn't a legitimate content debate. It's just disruptive and tiring contributors out. ] (]) 12:08, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
] (]) 18:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
:{{re|ProcrastinatingReader}} I don't have much time for paperwork at the moment, but I'm inclined to slap some sourcing restrictions on these pages as discretionary sanctions, and keep an eye on {{noredirect|COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis}} for a couple days in case the edit war returns. I'm just not sure how much that would help since the primary issue is talk page bludgeoning. That's best dealt with by topic bans, but I don't really know the topic area that well, so if you want tbans handed out I recommend taking some time to present some representative diffs here or at ]. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">— ]]​</span> 19:54, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
:'''Support unbanning and unblocking''' per ]. ] (]/]) 18:31, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
::{{re|Wugapodes}} I think sourcing restrictions would be helpful, for sure. There was, and still is, an effort on various noticeboards to get an opinion that MEDRS doesn't apply and/or that preprints and opinion pieces are as valuable as peer-reviewed pieces and scientist commentary. Such a sourcing restriction on the affected pages, along the lines of valereee's or , would provide support to editors and slow down the ''overwhelming'' rate of talk page fluff and forum shopping. There's also a discussion ] re a particular editor. ] (]) 03:08, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
* Quoting my SPI comment ]: {{tq2|I was torn on this. The IP does not seem to be creating the sort of low-quality BLP stubs that SportsOlympic was. If this were "just" a case of ''block'' evasion, I'm not sure I could justify a block of the IP as ] of any disruption, and would be inclined to either ignore it or block but offer a non-] unblock to the main account. However, Sander.v.Ginkel is ''banned'', and under the SportsOlympic account has caused significant disruption just six months ago. Evading a ban is an inherent harm, as it undercuts the community's ability to self-govern. Furthermore, it would be unfair to the community to allow someone to contribute content, particularly in a DS area as much of the IP's recent edits have been, without the community being on-notice of their history of significant content issues. (And there is still troubling content like ].) I thus feel I would be defying the mandate the community has given me as an admin if I did anything but block here.&nbsp;... FWIW, Sander, I could see myself supporting an ] unban down the line, although I'd recommend a year away rather than six months.}}That sentiment is what I eventually wrote down at ], which mentions the same principles being relevant in unban discussions. And now that this is before the community, with even more time having passed, I have no problem unbanning: The post-ban edits, while problematic in that they were sockpuppetry, do show evidence that Sander has learned from his mistakes, and thus a ban no longer serves a preventative purpose. Looking back at the one hesitation I mentioned above, I think my concern was that it was an ] violation that seemed credulous of a pro-Russian narrative; but if there's no evidence of that being part of any POV-pushing, then I don't see it as an obstacle to unbanning. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 18:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
:::lol on Valereee's source restriction. My claim to fame. Given that it's currently at ArbCom, I'd say @] would def be the better person to place it on those pages while I await my fate. Or doom, whichever. :D ] (]) 19:23, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per above.] (]) 18:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Endorse one account proviso. ] (]) 20:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*I'm a little bit concerned by the sockpuppetry returning earlier this year: ]. However, that is over 6 months ago. I would '''Support''' with the obvious proviso that the user be limited to 1 account and that IP editing may be scrutinized for evidence of ]. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 20:16, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' with provisions per above. Worth keeping a close eye on, but they ''seem'' to have understood the problems with their behavior and improved upon it. ] ] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>(])</sup></small></span> 07:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' I've previously spoken in favor of the subject as well. ] (]) 09:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. "My biggest mistake that I copied-pasted content from articles to other articles, that led to a BLP violation. " That wasn't the biggest mistake by far. You made extremely negative claims about sportspeople based on internet rumors. Apart from this, the first article I checked on simple, , is way too close paraphrasing of the source. has very sloppy writing, "He started his business alone 1980 built so his horse stable "Hexagon" in Schore. " is just nonsense. Copyvio/close paraphrasing seems to be a recurring problem, has e.g. "Zwaanswijk is regarded as one of the most respected post-World War II visual artists of Haarlem and his work had a profound influence on the local art scene." where the source has "Piet Zwaanswijk was een van de meest gerespecteerde na-oorlogse beeldend kunstenaars van Haarlem. Zijn werk had een diepe invloed op de lokale kunstscene". I don't get the impression that the earlier issues have disappeared. ] (]) 11:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' User seems to have recognized what he <!-- before someone complains about my use of the gender-neutral he, this user is male per what they've configured settings to be --> did wrong, has edited constructively off enwiki. ''']]''' 18:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
*<s>'''Weak Support''', the crux of the issue was three-fold: creation of low-quality sports stubs (including what Fram said), persistent IDHT when asked to fix them, and sockpuppetry. I recall I identified the SportsOlympic sock in a tangential ANI thread a couple of years ago. It appears he has edited constructively elsewhere. I would like to see a commitment to one-account-only and a commitment respond civilly and collaboratively when criticized. ] (]) 15:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)</s>
:*'''Oppose''', I am convinced by the further discussion below that S.v.G is not a net positive at this time. ] (]) 14:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
* '''Support'''. Completely support an unblock; see my comment ] when his IP was blocked in April. ] (]) 17:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. Sander and his socks created literally thousands of poorly-written and/or potentially-copyvio pages on (very frequently) non-notable sports topics. I don't see evidence in his Simple Wiki contribs that his writing has improved, and for someone with his history of non-notable subject choices I would want to see ''clear'' evidence that these creations are supported by WP:SUSTAINED, non-routine, IRS SIGCOV. Articles like may well be on notable competitions, but with content like {{tq|On 20 March the Women's Fencing Club gave an assaut, in honor of the visit of the Dutch team. As seen as an exceptional, mr. de Vos was a the only man allowed to visit the women's club.}}, and all sources being from 20 or 21 March 1911, we can be confident that verifying and rewriting the mangled translations and searching for continued coverage will be a huge pain for other editors. And going from the en.wp AfD participation I'd also anticipate the same combativeness and time wasted explaining P&Gs to him in that area as well. Given the volume of his creations, I don't think it is fair to foist all the extra work that would come with overturning the ban onto other editors without a much more thorough evaluation of his Simple Wiki contribution quality. ] (]) 02:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
* Currently '''oppose'''; open to a change of view if some explanation and assurances are given with regard to the points Fram raises. There is no point in unblocking a problematic editor if it appears that they may well continue to cause issues for the community ~ ''']'''<sup>''']''']</sup> 12:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
* '''Support''' but keep an eye on contributions off ENWP. ] (]) 17:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*:{{yo|Ahri Boy }} Not sure we are concerned with contribs off ENWP. ] (]) 18:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*::He might appeal on Commons later if the appeal here is successful, so there would be a cooldown before doing there. ] (]) 01:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per Fram on close paraphrasing, JoelleJay on sourcing/writing quality, and my own observations on English-language proficiency (I see very recent sentences like "]"). At an absolute minimum I would need a restriction on article creation (to prevent the low-quality mass creation issues from recurring), but these issues would be a problem in other areas too. I think continuing to contribute to simple-wiki and nl-wiki would be the best way forward. ] (]) 01:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:He was once blocked on NLWP for the same sockpuppetry as here before. I don't even know that he may be offered SO there. ] (]) 10:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::See . ] (]) 10:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. Like Fram, JoelleJay, and Extraordinary Writ, I have concerns about their competence with regards to copyright, notability, and simple prose writing. I think an unblock is likely to create a timesink for the community, who will be forced to tie one eye up watching both of his hands. &spades;]&spades; ] 08:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
* Come on – it's been nearly ''seven years'' since the ban – why can't we give another chance? His articles from when he was an IP seemed quite good (and much different from stubs which seem to have been the problem), from what I remember (although they've since been G5'd). ] (]) 16:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:S.v.G. needs to be reevaluated. He needs to clarify that the purpose of return is genuine, constructive, and one account only. He hasn't made any contributions to Commons because he was blocked. ] (]) 19:55, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:: I think saying that {{tq|I will never use multiple accounts anymore}} and that he wants to {{tq|make constructive content}} would indicate that {{tq|the purpose of return is genuine, constructive, and one account only.}} ] (]) 19:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::For the meantime, he should stay at Simple and NLWP for another six months to make sure no suspicions will be made before appealing under SO. ] (]) 20:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:But it's only been three years since he was mass-creating non-notable stubs with BLP violations and bludgeoning AfDs with his SportsOlympic sock. He then edited extensively as an IP, got banned for 18 months, restarted within two weeks of that ban ending, and made another 1000+ edits until his latest IP ban in spring 2024. After which he immediately invoked the (laxer) equivalent of the SO on nl.wp... ] (]) 21:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:: And he admits that he was {{tq|too focused on quantity, rather than quality}}, apologized repeatedly, and his creations as an IP showed that he was no longer focused on {{tq|mass-creating non-notable stubs}}. ] (]) 21:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' With the above mentioned provisions. Seems like a genuine, good faith, attempt to ]. <span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS;">'''] ]'''</span> 04:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - Like a lot of behavioral issues on this site, I think it all stems back to the general public seeing this site as an all-inclusive encyclopedia and some users here seeing the site as a celebrity encyclopedia. If the user becomes a problem, action can be taken again. Let's see how it goes. ] (]) 20:03, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per Fram and PMC. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">—]&nbsp;<sup>(]·])</sup></span> 18:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Question''': Is SvG the same person as {{U|Slowking4}}? There has been an odd connection between the two in the past; I think it was first noted by ]. ☆ <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family: Papyrus">]</span> (]) 22:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
**No. ] (]) 23:01, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. This appears to be a good-faith attempt at a return, and looking through the commentary here I don't see evidence to suggest continuing the ban and block are preventative. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' basically per ], particularly the evidence that their MASSCREATE/socking/evading behaviour was carrying on as recently as spring 2024. If/When they return, it should be with the requirement that all their articles have to go through AFC and that they won't get ] without a substantive discussion (i.e., no automatic conferring of autopatrolled - they have to request it and disclose why this restriction is in place when doing so). ] (]) 16:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


== Spider-Man: Beyond the Spider-Verse - draft article about a future film seems to be a long-term draft ==
:<small>Just a note that the issue with the Segreto paper isn't that it isn't peer-reviewed (it's been published), but that it's a primary source. Another MEDRS concern is the astounding lack of credentials of the authors and apparent lack of editorial oversight in the ''BioEssays'' "Problems & Paradigms" series, which the Segreto and Sirotkin papers appear under. ] (]) 05:38, 11 February 2021 (UTC) </small>


I have not come across a situation like ] before. Maybe this is fairly common and I have just missed it.
*There's also SPA disruption at ] (while the mainspace redirect had to be protected by Valeree). I did ], but that obviously came back negative... ] (] / ]) 21:46, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
::And now we have trolling ]... Would semi-protecting that MfD due to the issues of off-wiki canvassing and disruption help any of this? ] (] / ]) 21:58, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
::I propose a block on Billybostickson or at least a formal uninvolved admin warning, for attacking Boing! in apparent retaliation for a previous block and disrupting the deletion discussion, edit-warring back their attack when reverted. They have been recently blocked for similar behavior. Thanks, —]] – 22:40, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
:::Per of egregious off-wiki behaviour, a warning would be more than insufficient. Topic ban? ] (] / ]) 23:17, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
:{{ping|ToBeFree}} Radical solution: pinging an uninvolved admin... ] (] / ]) 23:38, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
::{{u|RandomCanadian}}, thank you very much for the trust expressed by this single ping.
::Per ]:
::*<s>{{userlinks|Billybostickson}} has been ] from all pages related to COVID-19, broadly construed, until the general sanctions in this area are removed by the community, or 01 January 2023, whichever comes first. ] (]) 00:28, 13 February 2021 (UTC)</s> <ins>see "02:48, 13 February 2021"</ins>
::*:<s>{{userlinks|Billybostickson}} has been ] from editing for 2 weeks for violating the topic ban from all pages related to COVID-19, broadly construed. ] (]) 00:41, 13 February 2021 (UTC)</s> <ins>see "02:48, 13 February 2021"</ins>
::*] is extended-confirmed protected indefinitely.
::*] is extended-confirmed protected indefinitely.
::*] is extended-confirmed protected indefinitely.
::*] is extended-confirmed protected indefinitely.
::*] is semi-protected indefinitely.
::Additionally, ] has been semi-protected for a month because of reasonable concerns about ].
::This can probably be closed. ] (]) 00:50, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
:::Thanks very much {{u|ToBeFree}}. This should aid with a bunch of the disruption, but I'm not sure all of it as some ECP users are responsible for some of the lengthier disruption, for example at ]. I still think ideally a solution should be devised for that, otherwise it'll almost certainly flare up again once this thread is archived. ] (]) 01:11, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
:::{{u|Billybostickson}} had not been formally notified about the sanctions in this area, so I have replaced the sanction and the block by a warning with a proper notification. I had seen a {{tl|GS/alert}} regarding these sanctions on ] and ], but Billybostickson hadn't received one. ] (]) 02:48, 13 February 2021 (UTC)


It is a draft article about a film that can not have an article, per ]. I think the idea is that there is some valuable content there and it would be a shame to delete it when it seems likely that the film will enter final animation and voice recording in the next year or so.
This, to me, does not seem like a great thread. I will start by saying that I have not edited any of the articles in question (outside of, perhaps, reverting vandalism on RC patrol). I am not a virologist or a doctor. I am just a guy who's a Misplaced Pages editor for fun. However, I have not been seeing a "discredited conspiracy theory" getting "pushed by SPAs"; indeed, I don't think I have seen anyone seriously say that the coronavirus was created in a lab and then released on purpose for some reason (which is absurd and no sources say this happened).


The problem is that it is attracting the sort of speculative edits from IPs that we want to avoid. Both on the draft and the talk page.
The thing I've seen is a litany of discussions started on various noticeboards, talk pages, MfDs, etc, in which the same accusation is made (namely, that everyone on one side of this debate is a SPA or a sock or a meatpuppet). That may be true, at this point; I'd say most reasonable people have gotten sick of it by now (I certainly have), and the only people left are people who care to an extreme degree about this. From the ] and ] kerfluffu ("does the origin of an epidemic need to be backed up by refs that meet medical sourcing standards, since it involves humans, who have bodies, which are studied by the field of medicine?") to the ] kerfluffu ("is this person being disruptive?") to the other ] kerfluffu ("is this other person being disruptive?") to the ] kerfluffu ("should this draft in userspace be deleted?") to the multiple ] kerfluffues, to this one now at ], it is hard to imagine someone who ''wasn't'' a ] (or at least strongly opinionated) editor even being able to remember what all of them were about.


I became aware of this because there is a request at ] to EC-protect the talk page. But it makes me think we should have some kind of protection for the draft too. But I can see arguments for weaker than ECP (speculation is just by IPs) and for stronger... like... why are people editing it anyway? Maybe there are reasons I am not aware of.
Since I do not feel up to the task of copy-pasting the exact same posts into a dozen different discussions about the exact same thing for weeks on end, I will say again, for the record, that Misplaced Pages's job is not to be an ], or to reflect the ]: it is to report facts. The facts here seem to be that, at one point, a number of credible people thought this was a possibility, and now a smaller number of them do, while others do not. Can we not just say that and get it over with? ''']'''×''']''' 22:56, 2 March 2021 (UTC)


Is anyone more familiar with how we got here? Anyone got any arguments for or against applying semi, EC or full protection to the draft and its talk page?
=== Discussion on something else ===
I would like to thank ] for removing the block and ban which ] used to unjustly (in my opinion of course) gag me at the behest of ]. However, I would also like to thank ] for remedying the mistake and attempting to provide a relatively coherent justification and for answering my 6 questions about the block and ban. After a friendly discussion with ] and in line with his advice I would like to add again what he deleted twice on this page (my response to a false claim by ] and ]:


<small>'''Edit:'''</small> Anyone got any thoughts on the concept of having a draft article for a film that doesn't meet ]?
And now we have User:Billybostickson trolling User:Boing! said Zebedee... Would semi-protecting that MfD due to the issues of off-wiki canvassing and disruption help any of this? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:58, 12 February 2021 (UTC) I propose a block on Billybostickson or at least a formal uninvolved admin warning, for attacking Boing! in apparent retaliation for a previous block and disrupting the deletion discussion, edit-warring back their attack when reverted. They have been recently blocked for similar behavior. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 22:40, 12 February 2021 (UTC) My Dear Paleo, you seem to have misconstrued something here, so let us review what you deleted and your reason for deleting it:


] (]) 00:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
"I disagree with the comment by XOR'easter as the COVID-19 misinformation article seems to conflate the bio-weapon theory with the lab leak theory in quite a devious way. Not sure how this happened but in the meantime we should definitely *Keep this draft page as it helps shed light on the issue in a much clearer way than the current bizarre section on the redirect page.Billybostickson (talk) 21:38, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
:As far as I'm aware, articles on films are allowed so long as principal photography has occurred (principal animation in this case, I guess?). That has clearly happened for this film, even if they are having to scrap and re-write things. And notability is certainly not in question, so having an article is fully within the policy rules. If there are harmful edits happening, then semi-protection seems like a normal response. ]]<sup>]</sup> 00:43, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::People say that on the draft's talk page every so often and get rebuffed. Maybe you can be more persuasive, but the general argument is the existing animation was created for "Spider-Man: Across The Spider-Verse" before it was split into two films and no "final animation" has begun on this film. ] (]) 01:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Are they basing that claim on any reliable source as evidence? Since what exists in that draft currently with reliable sources clearly indicates work has started. ]]<sup>]</sup> 01:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Hi. I'm the editor who has requested the protection for this draft. Per ], final animation or voice recording are the requirement to move a film draft to the mainspace. Final animation is different from standard reels being produced, which as sourced, is currently what this film has produced while no voice recording has occurred. It seems to still be very early in development, and much of the earlier work when this was the second part was reportedly scrapped (as sourced in the draft). I do not believe the mainspace viability ought to be discussed here as that is more for the draft. As for the protection request, it appears to be the same person making these disruptive comments which have become unnecessarily excessive and are detracting from the content of the draft itself. I requested protection (initially as ECP though semi works for the talk) because these comments have not benefitted any actual constructive progress and have largely ranged from the IPs attempting to enforce their own opinions about the delays and trying to remove sources they don't like, which has been ongoing since the end of October. As a draft, not many other editors are editing this, so it becomes quite unrelenting and tiresome to deal with these repeated disruptions. Glad to see this has garnered more attention. ] (]) 01:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::{{tqq|Per WP:NFF, final animation or voice recording are the requirement to move a film draft to the mainspace}} ...I'm ''pretty sure'' that BtSV meets ] already, regardless of the state of production, and ''that'' should be the main factor. - ] <sub>]</sub> 03:49, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::I have no problem with the draft being moved, this is just not the normal route to do so and typically NFF is followed for film articles, but I digress. I do caution that this article {{em|could}} be susceptible to further unconstructive comments in the mainspace, but that is a price I'm willing to handle. I can make the move as needed, no worries, I am primarily concerned about these type of comments continuing and if any protection is necessary to prevent or temporarily postpone them from continuing. ] (]) 05:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:There doesn't appear to be enough disruption to the draft page to justify protection at this point. Draft talk definitely should get semi-protection. ] (]/]) 00:45, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::Really? That seems excessive for a few FOURMy IP comments (likely from the same person). If they continue with it, block the IP, maybe. Protecting talk pages should really be a last resort. ] (] &#124; ]) 00:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:Some people overly use NFF to block any film article that has not confirmed start to production, which is really a bad black/white approach. ''Most'' films prior to production are not notable or may not even happen when they are first hinted at, and thus it is absolutely appropriate to use NFF to hold back on a standalone until production starts. But then you have some exceptional cases like this (the 3rd of the animated Spider-Man movies that have earned a massive amount of money and praise, with a lot of attention already given to the film even before production) as well as my own experience with ] which deals with a film that has numerous delays and other incidents that its still nowhere close to production, but its journey that way is readily sourced. NFF should not be used to block creation of articles on films that have this much detail about the work that is otherwise suitable by notability guidelines. For this specific article on the Spider-man film, I see no reason why it could not be in main space at this point as to avoid the whole draft problem.<span id="Masem:1735450356365:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators&apos;_noticeboard" class="FTTCmt"> —&nbsp;] (]) 05:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC)</span>
::Yeah, there is a point to be made that even if this final film somehow never finished production, it would still be notable because of the coverage of its attempted production history. There's several films (and video games, among other cultural apocrypha) that meet that notability requirement, even without ever actually having been completed and released to the public. ]]<sup>]</sup> 05:36, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Indeed, a number of aborted films projects are notable exactly ''because'' they wound up in ]. ] is a film about my personal favorite never-got-made film. ] ] 02:59, 30 December 2024 (UTC)


Noting here that Trailblazer101 moved the article from draft space to main space at 22:44, based on the discussion here and ]. I have not seen any objections to that move since it was done. I have not seen any more speculative or forumy edits recently. There is a good chance they will come back, but if they come back in a serious number the article and/or talk page can be given an appropriate level of protection at that point, or, if the responsible IPs/accounts can be blocked. I think it is probably time to close this discussion. ] (]) 10:56, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
(You already !voted Keep once. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:45, 12 February 2021 (UTC)) Dear Boing! said Zebedee If you came here because someone asked you to, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Misplaced Pages contributors. Misplaced Pages has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Thank you for your attention!"
:The IP has made three unconstructive and uncivil comments on the talk today (see , and they show no signs of stopping. ] (]) 18:03, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
::I have blocked that IP. I note that it is possible that some of the other IPs could be the same users and so will block other IPs and/or apply semi-protection if this continues (or encourage others to do the same if I am away from my computer). ] (]) 11:51, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
* {{tq|Anyone got any thoughts on the concept of having a draft article for a film that doesn't meet WP:NFF?}} Using draftspace to incubate articles on subjects that are not yet notable but almost certainly will be—unreleased films, upcoming elections, sports events, the next in an "X by year" series, and so on—is a common practice and has been as long as I can remember. As such it's listed at ]. &ndash;&#8239;]&nbsp;<small>(])</small> 12:04, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
**Thank you. ] (]) 15:01, 1 January 2025 (UTC)


I think it makes sense to archive all threads in ]. They are all either forumy or else asking when the page can be moved to article space, which is no longer relevant since it is in article space. ] (]) 20:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Now, Per WP:ASPERSIONS, I am not discussing editor conduct but instead I am clearly focus on content and processes, in this case the correct interpretation of "voting" on this page as per the heading on the page, neither am I discussing an administrator's conduct, WP:AN or WP:ARBCOM. My recent post in no way "attacked" Bong! as you bizarrely claim. Kindly explain why you think this was an "attack" and why you consider it "inappropriate". Finally, I am not sure why you mention "As for WP:SPA," here as I certainly did not mention or say anything about that.
:I've updated the archive bot on that talk age to act on 1 month old threads. Should get rid of half of the ones on there when it runs next and the rest will follow soon enough. I've always thought 6 months was way too long of a default archive policy. ]]<sup>]</sup> 20:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)


== 43.249.196.179 (again) ==
Indeed, you are free to use your "widely used template" as you wish, but please explain what this means: "You also appear to be edit-warring back the attack" Firstly, there was no attack and secondly I merely reverted your deletion and politely asked your for a coherent reason, rather than "undid revision. will report at WP:ANI" which does not seem like a logical reason for deleting text.


See their previous thread here, ]. Continuing to disrupt and remove categories without explanation, decided to after restoring edits without any talk page discussion, and has now moved onto and by removing categories without said user's permission, calling my reversions 'vindicitive' and now considering me their personal 'nemesis' because they don't understand why they're being reverted. <span style="font-family: Roboto;">''']''' <span style="color:#00008B">•</span> <small>''(])''</small></span> 21:16, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
To be honest your final comment, given your clear WP:POVEDITOR on this topic and related pages : "so I'm reporting you as promised" appears to be WP:HOUND. Kindly explain yourself calmly and clearly and avoid falsely accusing other editors of "attacks" so that through dialogue we may improve communication and understanding. If you are unwilling to do this then I will seek dispute resolution and arbitration. Also, kindly refrain from deleting my contributions for no logical reason.Billybostickson (talk) 23:04, 12 February 2021 (UTC)Billybostickson (talk) 00:33, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
:] is not familiar with some of the WP policies and guidelines especially ] and ]. Also, his obfuscated username is somewhat fustration and is not conducive to efficient editing. ] (]) 21:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:]: Editing user pages has no 'hard policy' prohibition, as this is a wiki. 'End of discussion', seriously? Also see ]. Then, ] is a container category, which clearly says it should only contain subcategories. Even I don't understand why they're being reverted. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 22:08, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
::] seems to be unaware of many of the WP polices and guidelines. ] (]) 08:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I've been here nineteen years so obviously I do and I apologize if as mentioned I'm more aggressive about userspace being in control of the user themselves. That said I'm no longer engaging with you or any of your edits as you're now ] and trying to troll some kind of response out of me (and doing the same for Liz, who has the patience of a saint), which you won't get. Understand our guidelines or get blocked. If anyone uninvolved would like to close this, please do so. <span style="font-family: Roboto;">''']''' <span style="color:#00008B">•</span> <small>''(])''</small></span> 17:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Length of time on WP is not a measure of how familiar an editor is with policy and guidelines. Your previous comments show that you are unfamiliar with some of them, but to be fair, it is impossible to know all of them. There are a lot of editors that do not know a lot of the policies and guidelines. THere are content disputes and corrections and reverts happening all the time because of inexperienced editors.
::::I am not trolling. I just want WP to be much better than it currently is. ] (]) 19:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::Adressing that final point, I have ] about ] to either remove the ] banner tag or give special sanction to empty user pages from that main category. ] (]) 21:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Category:Wikipedians is at a level of the hierarchy that there should be nothing in it, which is why it is a container category. The contents of it have been added by editors who do not understand how WP works and do not realise that it is a container category. You proposal is not needed. ] (]) 22:07, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:'''Comment''': ] was cited in ] (a sandbox used for drafting a larger edit needing discussion, where categories were copied along with the rest of the article's content). (] is mentioned explicitly in that guideline.) ] (]) 02:49, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
::Whatever the case, user sandbox space is sacred and unless you have permission to edit there, you don't touch them, that's an unwritten rule. Mathglot certainly . That's the main issue here and if I was wrong on the cats so be it, but they should not be playing in sandboxes they shouldn't be in. <span style="font-family: Roboto;">''']''' <span style="color:#00008B">•</span> <small>''(])''</small></span> 02:54, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
::: Just to clarify: I have no qualms about others making improvements to pages in my users space—which belong to the community and are not "mine"—as long as they are improvements. That said, IP's edits in my userspace look like vandalism to me. ] (]) 03:04, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
:::User namespace is not "sacred". And if there is an unwrittten rule then it is not a rule that needed to be adhered to. Also ]. To be a good editor it is important to be familiar with policis and guidelines. ] (]) 08:03, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
:It was not a "gravedance". I was pointing out to you that other editors dont agree with you edits. ] (]) 09:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)


I only just noticed this AN discussion, after placing ] at User talk:43.249.196.179 about vandalizing a Draft template in my user space. Their edits seem somehow to be related to categories, but near as I can guess from their edit summary ], they also had some inscrutable complaint about me using my userspace as "social media". Maybe interested parties here will understand what they are talking about, because I certainly don't. As of this point, I cannot tell if they are well-meaning, but highly misinformed and uncomprehending, or if they are simply trolling everyone. I suspect the latter, but am willing to be proved wrong, especially if enceforth they stick to ] and ], instead of ignoring advice given previously and ]. ] (]) 03:00, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Per this report of egregious off-wiki behaviour, a warning would be more than insufficient. Topic ban? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:17, 12 February 2021 (UTC) Note to admins: The account has since been privated, so the information has been removed. But I can confirm that the "Billybostickson" was discussing the MfD on twitter, which is where all the socks were probably coming from. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
: Okay, now I am sure: see ] at my Talk page, quickly reverted by {{u|Remsense}} while I was in the process of reverting it. This is clearly intentional, malicious, vandalism, as well as retaliation. Therefore, I propose an '''indefinite block''' on {{user|43.249.196.179}} as it is a vandalism-only account. ] (]) 03:13, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
::I haven't looked into this editor's edits but we don't indefinitely block IP editors as the IP account can easily be assigned to a different user. But they can receive longtime blocks on the order of months or years. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:33, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
::You are looking at two different IP addresses. Getting things right is important. ] (]) 07:53, 1 January 2025 (UTC)


== Incivility at ] ==
Hemiauchenia (talk), not sure if that is your real name (and I don't care) but what you are doing seems to be WP:HOUND especially in light of your clear WP:POVEDITOR on several pages related to this topic, even more so if you are trying to find out "who I am" by investigating social media accounts. If you wish to know more about me, please see my Talk Page:


@] and to a lesser extent @] have been bickering in the talk page for a while now, and the reply chains are so long that they go off my phone's screen. DEB in particular has been noticeably passive aggressive in their comments, such as at me, at AWF, and at ]. Is this actionable? ] (]) 01:57, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/User:Billybostickson


:This looks to me like it's covered by ]. ] ] 02:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Thanks to any admin who has read this response, hopefully we can now move on and ensure that a quite plausible "lab leak hypothesis" is not falsely conflated with bio-weapon allegations, which is the current state of affairs and the reason for some of the disputes on the Covid-19 origin pages. I understand it is hard work sorting the wheat from the chaff and trying to ensure the WP pages are neutral and factual. My respect for that work you do.
:I have yet to dig through the very length discussions, but on the surface I can say that I'm glad to see it not turning into much of an edit war in the article itself, and remaining mostly on the talk page. Infact the only person who breached 2R's was someone you didn't mention, and interestingly was never warned, but I placed a soft warning on their talk page. As far as the specific diffs provided, I don't see anything in there which is all that problematic, unless you're deeply intrenched in the issue. I would proffer is that if someone says, in it's entirety {{tq|I am stating a fact.}} and you take offence to that, then you might need to back away from the discussion for a few days. ]&thinsp;] 02:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
] (]) 04:29, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
::{{tq|"...then you might need to back away from the discussion for a few days".}} You're probably right about that. ] (]) 02:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:This seems entirely unnecessary. ] (]) 03:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::Can you elaborate on which aspect of {{tq|this}} you are referring to that you believe is unnecessary? ]&thinsp;] 03:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::By this, I mean bringing the issue to ANI. If I owe anyone an apology, I stand ready to give it, but @] hasn't really been involved in the discussion until very recently and has already escalated it here. ] (]) 03:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::It doesn't matter how much someone has been involved in a discussion. If there's misconduct that's not clearly going to get resolved on its own (which I'm not confident saying either way here), then it's a public service, even a responsibility, for an editor to report it. ] (]) 05:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::@] you can see my initial assessment of the situation above. However, I will say uninvolved editors are welcome to bring valid concerns to ANI. It is often far more helpful when someone outside of the situation brings it up here as it ends up being far more neutral. I also would suggest that you might also be too involved right now and need to back away for a few days. The biggest reason is that I believe you read right past Animal lover's and my response which ''basically didn't find you doing anything wrong''. I suggest that a cooling off period might be good for you as well. Not because you're currently doing anything wrong (because that conversation would look quite different), but rather that you're likely too invested in this topic right now to see rationally and objectively. ]&thinsp;] 06:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::It was not my intent to ignore those assessments, and I understand what you've said as far as uninvolved editors raising such issues (real or perceived). ] (]) 19:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Also, as a note, this isn't ANI... - ] <sub>]</sub> 07:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:Infact I don't know why such a simple infobox change discussion will resulted in endless arguments. And it happened in mutiple pages, like this ], this ], and now this Azerbaijan Airlines crash case there. And I'm afraid there would be other arguements in previous pages.
:But to be honest, I think I also have some responsibilities on this endless situation: I have known what to do to deal with such major changes, but I didn't really take any action. ] (]) 07:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::The whole "Accident vs Crash" thing has been going on for a while now. It pretty much goes nowhere every time. DEB gives a whole bunch of reasons why "accident" should be avoided, AWF gives a whole bunch of reasons why "accident" is perfectly fine, and it all repeats with every new ] article. I just recommended on DEB's talk page that they try to seek a wider consensus to break this endless cycle, because I for one am tired of seeing the same arguments over and over again with no progress. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 08:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Infact you can check the talkpage I provided, you will find such arguments have happened on mutiple pages. ] (]) 08:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Since the regular editors in this topic area have proven that they are unable to resolve this utterly trivial terminology dispute among themselves, perhaps the best solution might be to topic ban every consistent advocate of "accident" and to topic ban every consistent advocate of "crash" from all articles about airplane mishaps, and let entirely uninvolved editors make a reasonable decision. Because endless bickering among entrenched advocates is disruptive. Topic bans could then be lifted on editors who explicitly agree to ] and drop the terminology issue forever. ] (]) 08:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::It's less "unable to resolve" and more "Dreameditsbrooklyn argues that using 'accident' is original research because the sources use 'crash'" and I wish I was joking. Your modest proposal probably ''would'' get some kind of result though! - ] <sub>]</sub> 08:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Infact I have already suggested to delete this controversial value ], since it have not much actural use to show, and mostly have the same contents with the "Summary" value. And ironically, it has showed the available value on the doc page, but the example they showed on simply violate it! But since then nobody really talk about it yet. ] (]) 08:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::As someone who has consistently been on the side "accident is fine" of this argument (there really isn't an "accident/crash" binary here, just whether "accident" is original research), I think that's a bit extreme. I laid out a ] on DEB's talk page, which should hopefully help resolve the issue once and for all without the need for more drastic measures. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 09:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Respectfully, the descriptions aren't trivial. A "crash" describes what happened. An "accident" implies someone made a mistake with no real culpability. An "incident" implies some sort of interaction or series of events. I have no specific dog in this fight and I don't believe I've voiced any significant opinion on the matter here or elsewhere, but such a description is not trivial when we are trying to be ] in our descriptions. In this particular case, it very much appears that the act was deliberate and the airliner was acceptable collateral damage (in their opinion). At a minimum, it's disputed. As such, "accident" isn't appropriate as it is at least alleged to be a deliberate act or negligence. "Incident" or "crash" would be more neutral. If we say "accident" it implies no one should be blamed and fails ]. ] (]) 22:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::] (the context of aviation has been from at least one discussion on the matter). We could go over whether "accident" actually implies no culpability in the context of aviation all day, but this is not the place to do it. As I stated numerous times, we need to formally establish a project-wide consensus about this, and ] is a good place to start. As for this discussion, I think it can be closed as the issue in question is very minor. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 22:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::WP:MOS says: {{tq|If any contradiction arises, this page has precedence.}}
:::::::WP:AT, which follows MOS says: {{tq|Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources.}}
:::::::The very broad majority of RS call this a crash. Why, in this case, doesn't this apply? Because some editors disagree? I am honestly asking. I don't see a policy which overrules MOS here. Also, I'll hold off on any new discussions on this until things have concluded here and at the article talk page, where the same editor who started this discussion opened an RfC on the topic. ] (]) 22:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::I will not continue this off-topic discussion here. If the same perceived problem is happening across multiple ] articles, then the discussion needs to be moved there to finally end the cycle and come to a consensus. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 23:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::I'm not sure WP:AATF is the correct venue to continue the discussion for a number of reasons, which I will spare going into here. ] (]) 23:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::{{tqq|The very broad majority of RS call this a crash. Why, in this case, doesn't this apply?}} Because ] don't need to "follow the sources", and insisting that they do is ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 01:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::Others have rejected this as the venue to hold this debate, and I will too. I suggest you follow your own advice and drop the stick, at least for now. ] (]) 02:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::{{tqq|An "accident" implies someone made a mistake with no real culpability}} No, it does not. The International Civil Aviation Organization, which is somewhat of an authority on the matter, defines an 'aircraft accident' as {{tqq|Accident. An occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft ..., in which: a) a person is fatally or seriously injured b) the aircraft sustains damage or structural failure c) the aircraft is missing or is completely inaccessible}}. Notice what isn't there - anything about mistakes or culapbility. {{ping|Buffs}} "Accident" is the official internationally recognized term for this sort of occurance, and is entirely neutral in use. Note that "incident" has a very specific term in aviation which is "an occurrence, other than an accident, associated with the operation of an aircraft that affects or could affect the safety of operation." {{ping|Dreameditsbrooklyn}} I'd suggest you ] and stop pushing this ] ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Why do you think this jargon use should take precedence over the common meaning of the word? The word "accident" can be used in (at least) two senses, one of which involves a lack of intention -- the fact that the ICAO (who?) says that they use the word "accident" in only one of these senses isn't somehow magically binding on everyone else who uses the word in the context of aviation. Given the choice between a word with two ambiguous senses, one of which inappropriate, and a word that has only one relevant sense, it's obvious that the latter word will be clearer, isn't it? ] (]) 04:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::]. The people whose job it is to establish these things for aviation. It's not the use of one word for the other that I have a problem with. It's the argument that, somehow, using "accident" constitutes original research ''when in fact it is the correct terminology'' - and in fact some of the suggested alternatives are explicitly ''incorrect'' terminology - is the problem. And no, its not "magically binding", but ] in the context of aviation is to refer to ''any'' crash as an "aviation accident", just like how if somebody deliberately rear-ends you in road rage it's still a "car accident" - it isn't ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 09:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::Do you think there was a car accident in New Orleans a few days ago? When you appeal to an organization like ICAO for what the meaning of a common word is, you are by definition using jargon. ] (]) 17:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::When you appeal to an expert for the meaning of a word in the context of what it's being used in, that's common sense. - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::It’s the very definition of the word jargon! No wonder people are finding you impossible to deal with. ] (]) 18:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::What is "an occurrence, other than an accident..." if "accident" includes "incidents"? Definition you're claiming here doesn't make a lot of sense. ] (]) 19:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::Accident =/= incident, which I believed was clear. - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::Incident includes accidents AND intentional acts. ] (]) 18:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::Not , but this probably ''is'' something best not continued here I reckon. - ] <sub>]</sub> 18:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::I did not bring this up to ] to litigate whether to use "crash" or "accident". If you would like to litigate that, I have started a RfC on the Talk page. I brought this here to ask the admins to discuss whether <u>DEB's and AWF's behavior</u> is worth pursuing administrator action. ] (]) 01:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Since you think this is an "utterly trivial terminology dispute" should I tag you in the RFC at WP:RS when I make it, or not? I don't wish to bother you if it's not important to you. ] (]) 22:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:I know this discussion is about conduct, not about the disagreement which prompted it, but I'll note that the other user named here and who has not responded has since changed instances of the word 'crash' to accident on other entries and has also since been of violating 3RR on the very entry which prompted this discussion. I've agreed to confine any further conversations to the talk page until a consensus is reached, wherever that may be. ] (]) 02:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::On the very entry for a completely different reason regarding the use of the Aviation Safety Network but I concede that whilst I was within the limits of 3RR, it probably shouldn't have gotten to that point in the first place. {{Tq|... since changed several instances of the word 'crash' to accident on other entries}} – The only changes made were either related to a change within the infobox to stay consistent with ] as the occurrence type on the aforementioned article stated {{Tq|Airliner crash}}, or related to changes regarding short descriptions since they were changed to be phrased in a way that is not usually done. It's not like I removed every single mention of the word ''crash'' and replaced it with ''accident''. But back to the main topic, I'm willing to drop the issue as long as it's not an problem to use ''accident'' in articles relating to aviation. ] (]) 03:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)


Can we close this? The current discussion has next to nothing to do with the original issue and is best continued somewhere else. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 19:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:{{re|Billybostickson}} . {{u|ToBeFree}} undid the block that they had made, and as such, I closed out your unblock request. I haven't read anything associated with that block, and because of that, I have no opinion on it. ]] 04:32, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
::I'm not sure if copying the above here was appropriate but would just like to clarify that I don't have anything to add and don't think it's necessary to defend my previous complaint. Thanks to ToBeFree for their advice at Billy's page and for the page protections. —]] – 04:41, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
:::I think the wall of text above should be collapsed or otherwise clerked, as it doesn't really further the discussion at all and seems to be an assorted mixture of grievances. ] (]) 04:50, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying that {{u|ToBeFree}}, my mistake.
I will ignore the arrogant response by ]
I disagree with ] who seems to be attempting to suffocate a justified response to false claims by disparaging them instead of allowing them to be visible so that we all can learn from our errors.] (]) 05:03, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
:(Just saying before anyone notifies me, I have seen the above message and chose to do nothing. The current heat is fueled by an incorrect block. No, there was neither arrogance nor disparagement involved in these messages. People disagree with each other, that's all.) ] (]) 05:09, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
:Not sure what "error" you're talking about. Afaics ToBeFree unbanned you due to bureaucratic requirements ({{t|gs/alert}}), not because the merits of the ban were wrong. Your first action since is to post , which is another wall of text. ] (]) 14:56, 13 February 2021 (UTC)


:Agreed. An admin got involved and simply continued off-topic discussion. ] (]) 21:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
===Additional user space copies===
*'''Warn both to drop the stick''', otherwise, no action at this point. ] (]) 15:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*] has found two more examples of a very substantially similar nature to the draft at MfD mentioned above. I have bundled them with the original nomination since it's extremely unlikely the outcome would be any different if they were nominated individually; and also because they are substantially similar. If anybody here feels that the bundling is incorrect, feel free to undo that and start individual nominations. In any case, I don't think we'll want to be playing whack-a-mole with this kind of nonsense... ] (] / ]) 03:38, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
*:I didn't find them. Did you mean {{u|PaleoNeonate}}? ] (]) 03:58, 14 February 2021 (UTC) *:'''''Hands ] two ]''''' You want to hand them out, or me? ] (]) 16:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::<small><humour>Phew I'm not an admin yet or I'd be blocking the wrong guys all over</humour></small> Yes, clearly, my bad. Anyway, the point I made above about whack-a-mole copies of the draft stands. ] (] / ]) 04:06, 14 February 2021 (UTC)


== Request removal of PMR/Rollback ==
===DRN thread===
{{atop
*FYI, User:Billybostickon has now filed a thread at DRN, here ]. This should also be seen in light of continued discussion/disruption on the Covid-19 misinformation talk page... ] (] / ]) 17:51, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
| result = Flags removed ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 22:52, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
**The DRN thread has been , as the filer has been ]. ] (]) 20:34, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
}}
* We need several topic bans and/or ] blocks in the area, rather than wasting more time, thanks for the progress, —]] – 22:54, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
====Comment about DRN====
Editors sometimes open threads at ] about disputes that are already also being discussed in another forum. They may, in good faith, think that DRN has a more extensive scope than it does. Sometimes they are being evasive or are ]. The DRN volunteers close such disputes if we notice that the matter is pending somewhere else. This was a relatively easy close, because the the filing party was blocked shortly after filing. ] (]) 07:49, 18 February 2021 (UTC)


Hi, lately, I haven't been using my page-mover and rollback rights that often and I don't feel returning to the activity anytime soon. Can any admin remove these flags from my account. I relatively happen to support in file-renaming areas these days and have also decided to put in some efforts in this month's NPP backlog. So these rights should stay. Thank you. <small><sub><span style="color:SteelBlue;">Regards, </span></sub></small>] ] 10:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
So: Please be aware that ] is disapproved of, and you are encouraged to bring content disputes to DRN that are not pending in another forum. ] (]) 07:49, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
:{{done}}. ] (]) 10:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Insults, personal attacks and reverts of academic material ==
=== Off Wiki Recruitment ===
{{atop|1=This appears to be done. - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}}
There has been discussion of related Misplaced Pages articles by pro "lab leak" conspiracy theorists on twitter, which has likely resulted in the recruitment of new and dormant pro-"lab leak" editors to talk pages and related discussions, see for an example. ] (]) 18:22, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
* {{la|Naomi Seibt}}
After reverting that included references to peer-reviewed papers in academic journals, @] posted the following on the Naomi Seibt talk page: ".". ] (]) 12:05, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:Yes, why haven't you done that? --] (]) 12:07, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:Article in question is a ] x3. The initial reverts of the IP's edits were for ], since the IP included all the material in question in the lead with no mention in the body of the article. Does {{u|FMSky}} need ] for using the term "trash analyses"? Maybe. However, the IP's actions lean into the ] category, and that may call for either direct sanctions against the anonymous editor or protection/sanctions on the article in question. —''']''' (]) 12:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::{{tq|Does FMSky need trouted for using the term "trash analyses"?}} How else would you describe the IPs additon of "In May 2020, she reiterated her dismissal of investigative evidence by endorsing" --] (]) 12:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::You deleted all academic sources that claim that she is far-right, including other sources that have nothing to do with ]. ] (]) 12:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Which also indicates that you were more focused on reverting information you don't agree with, without first discussing it in the talk page. ] (]) 12:15, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Edit: . ] (]) 12:15, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Put your new content into the body of the article instead of the lead. The lead is a summary of the body --] (]) 12:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Done. Now it’s a summary. ] (]) 12:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::User continues to stuff the lead with info not found anywhere else . A block or article lock would be appreciated --] (]) 12:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::I will proceed with covering the whole lead in the rest of the page. Give me an hour or two. ] (]) 13:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::Start with the body. Do the lede last. And work at article talk to make sure you have consensus before making major changes, especially to the lede. ] (]) 13:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::The IP has come up with a more than sufficient number of reliable sources to back up the far right assertions (etc). However, the lead is not the place to stuff them: they should be in the body, and the lead should reflect that content. <b>]<small> + ] + ]</small></b> 14:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
* Not only is there a pattern of IP editors inserting large chunks of information to the intro about her right-wing ties, but I also see from 21 December that seemed to be at the start of the pattern, and that's from now-blocked user {{userlinks|FederalElection}}. At the least, that's a mitigating factor to excuse FMSky's heavy-handed reaction to these latest edits. At the most, it's grounds to revert the addition until a (new, civil, content-related) discussion at the talk page generates consensus to include it and/or protect the page—and that protection might need logged as CTOP enforcement. —''']''' (]) 12:23, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*:You are consistently reverting edits that can be fully backed by reliable peer reviewed articles. You are refusing to acknowledge the scholarly literature. If any of you wanted to politely contribute to the article, you would not remove such sources. It’s not just the “chunk of information”, as you like to refer to it, but the constant removal of content you personally don’t agree with. Asking for the article to be locked is an effort to block others to edit, when the information provided is reliable. The bias extends to your plea to excuse FMSky’s insults. ] (]) 12:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*::IP - from what FMSky is saying above it looks like the issue is that you're attempting to put material in the lede which is not elaborated upon within the body of the article. This is a manual of style issue. Maybe consider working at article talk to find an appropriate place within the article for your sources. ] (]) 13:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*::Tread lightly, IP. Trying to link policy-based edits to personal bias is wading back into WP:ACCUSATIONOFMALICE. You will need to present strong evidence to back such accusations up. —''']''' (]) 13:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*::I'll add that ] requires consensus before restoring material removed "on good-faith BLP objections". Even if the information was in the body, ] concerns arise with pretty much anything added to the lead. So if an editor feels material doesn't belong in the lead of a BLP, it's entirely reasonable to ask for there to be consensus before it's added back. ] (]) 09:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)


I think everything's been said that needs to be said here. As long as ] now complies with the request to add the content to the body of the article before adding any summary to the lead, all users engage on the talk page, I don't think any admin action is necessary. ]] 13:37, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:There seems to be a someone covertly canvassing editors via email who have expressed favourable opinions in the past year to vote keep on the MfD. See ]. Seriously problematic. Which also explains for the rise in keep voters of late, some of which haven't edited for months prior to the MfD. ] (]) 07:58, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
{{abot}}
::{{u|ProcrastinatingReader}} Reported the blatant infringement at ANI. ] (] / ]) 14:33, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
::: Spoiler Alert: It was {{u|ScrupulousScribe}}, who has been blocked for two months as a result. We would probably have never figured out the exact user unless the guy who admitted being emailed revealed who it was. Can someone make a section on the MfD to let the closer know about this? As it is likely to get lost in the walls of text otherwise (I have been asked to not make any further edits to the MfC discussion, and I will respect this). Also, there's nothing stopping ScrupulousScribe creating another dummy account and using it to continue to covertly canvass users via email undetected.] (]) 18:14, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
::::Account creation should be disabled per the block log, unless he has a dynamic IP (but that would be block evasion, and let's not immediately go down the path of ] - they might be misguided/problematic, but let's hope they're not that kind of problematic). As nominator, I'll post an additional additional notice under the existing ones at the top. ] (] / ]) 00:05, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
::{{u|ProcrastinatingReader}}, slightly off topic but might I recommend changing that link to ]? Your current link covers a few revisions too many which make it seem like you're the canvassed editor at first glance ''] ] <sup>|</sup> ]'' 15:23, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
:note: an RfC has been started at ]. Given the sheer amount of SPAs and offwiki recruitment on the MfD and in general, it's possible that the RfC may see the same sort of issues. ] (]) 18:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
::If my spidey sense is anything to go by, we're already seeing it. ] (]) 14:27, 18 February 2021 (UTC)


== Appeal of topic ban from 2018 ==
: (posted this afternoon) is egregious and well beyond the pale, particularly as it seems to target specific editors (myself included). I'd have removed the offending comment here (since it's strictly not related to the discussion) but obviously I'm better not doing that, especially since the original poster is stubborn about it. {{ping|Barkeep49}} (or ArbCom in general, you happened to be first on the list) Is there anything that can be done about this kind of off-wiki behaviour, or are we stuck here waiting for these NOTHERE nuisances to show themselves? ] (] / ]) 23:00, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
{{atop|There is consensus to remove this topic ban reached as part of an unblock. Closer's note: as a contentious topic if disruption were to happen again any uninvolved administrator could reimplement the topic ban. ] (]) 18:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)}}
::This thread is rather long and my attention occupied in other ways. However, my quickread of this situation is that it's not in ArbCom's remit at the moment as there isn't offwiki evidence that needs to be considered about specific editors. It seems like there might be bog standard administrative actions available here (i.e. doing some extended confirmed protection to thwart newly registered accounts) and since you're already at AN - which some administrators might see it - hopefully you'll get some assistance. Feel free either by pinging me here or leaving a message on my talk page with a concise summary if I've gotten this wrong. <small>Just a note that I am on the lookout for someone to get elected to ArbCom next year who will appear before me alphabetically because I seem to be first on ] for many people.</small> Best, ] (]) 23:14, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
In January 2018 (I believe), I was topic banned from editing articles related to ] due to a number of idiotic edits that violated BLP. The UTRS ticket for this I believe is . In the time since then, I have demonstrated that I can edit Misplaced Pages constructively (I have 80,350 edits, a large number of which will be on BLP and BLP-related topics), and so I am requesting for this topic ban to be revoked. Whilst I do not plan to make large edits on Donald Trump articles, I would like to have the ability to edit articles on current US events from time to time e.g. to comment on them at ] where Trump-related article nominations often appear. Please could you consider removal of this editing restriction? Courtesy ping to {{U|Alex Shih}} who implemented the topic ban in the first place . ]] (]) 12:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::Normally it's fine to delete ] and ] style posts (]), except sometimes if other editors answered, remains to determine if it's really in the "Removing harmful posts" category (I don't really care if it remains, it at the same time exposes them)... —]] – 02:39, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
:For what it's worth, Alex Shih was removed as an administrator in 2019 and has not edited since August, 2022. ] (]) 17:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
===Proposed topic ban or NOTHERE block for Dinglelingy===
:I'd generally support this. Joseph's topic ban from ITN/C and related pages was lifted more than a year ago, and there haven't been any problems in that area, so I have some optimism that this topic ban is also no longer needed. --] (]) 17:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
* {{user links|Dinglelingy}}
::I'm a little concerned that after the big mess in 2018 they still managed to get themselves blocked again in 2022. But, yeah, as Floq says, they seem to have moved past that and have a year's worth of productive editing now. They also seem to understand what got them in trouble in the first place, so I'll cautiously endorse lifting the TBAN. It needs to be understood, however, that with this much history if there's more problems I don't expect there will be much willingness to extend any more ]. ] ] 21:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Endorse lifting TBAN per above. ] (]) 23:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Endorse removal of topic ban. ] <sub>(] / ])</sub> 02:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Endorse removal of topic ban per ]. ] (]) 02:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== User:SpiralWidget vandalizing pages ==
Their activity on Misplaced Pages has only been to promote specific sources and views on COVID-19. Behavior has also been suboptimal including accusations and ], this despite previous warnings. They've been warned about ]/] and ]/] by myself ] (it wasn't the first behavioral issue but it was after I noticed ]). Warned again by Doug Weller ] after accusing editors at ]. They've already received the GS alert for COVID-19 in January from El C ]. Despite these they are keeping up, now at ] like: ], ]. It may be time for the unevitable... —]] – 08:04, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
{{atop|1=Given , it appears the OP has withdrawn their complaint. - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)}}
* It seems there ''is'' something unsavoury happening here. So {{u|Dinglethingy}} (a likely sock and/or ]-avoiding returning user of some kind, judging by their edit history) writes a diatribes prominently naming several editors. This then gets screenshotted and posted on twitter by a "lab leak" proponent and subsequently there is a call to arms suggesting the proponents create "the GameStop of lab leak". It would be good if an admin could untangle what's going on. And it would be good if Misplaced Pages does not become the attempted venue for the "GameStop of Lab leak". ] (]) 08:46, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
<s>I am reporting User:SpiralWidget for repeated vandalism on articles I have created or contributed to. Below is the evidence of their disruptive behavior:
* The user known here as BillyBostickson is also back at it (after having earlier made their account private). And yes the call to arms is very worrying. Although we can't directly link any user here to a twitter handle (except the previous); I'd say that overall, this constitutes a sign of clear complicity in an attempt to disrupt the encyclopedia. I '''support''' both options. ] (] / ]) 13:40, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
:: "PaleoNaziNate & Random Canadian Kapo" bahahahaha clearly he is very mad, at least ScrupulousScribe was civil. ] (]) 21:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
:::<small>"PaleoNaziNate"??! When "PaleoNeoNazi" is just right there?! (No shade to PaleoNeonate, of course). ] (]) 22:08, 19 February 2021 (UTC)</small>
:::Anybody with a Twitter account should ideally report the offender for abusive behaviour (I've reported the matter to ArbCom here); though I don't know if our definition of "abusive behaviour" is more stringent than that of social media platforms (probably). ] (] / ]) 22:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
:::: {{Ping|RandomCanadian}} BillyBostickson has been indefinitely blocked by the arbitration committee, likely thanks to your complaints. Well deserved, in my opinion. ] (]) 21:20, 25 February 2021 (UTC)


===Notice=== === Evidence ===
1. – User:SpiralWidget removed sourced content and replaced it with false information. – This is when SpiralWidget first began vandalizing my contributions. He falsely alleged that simply creating a wikipedia article was to influence an election, and even posted a link to a ballotpedia page about an election in 2026 to encourage sabotaging the article. The reason this is concerning, is because the page is general information about Moliere Dimanche, an artist, a prison reform activist, and a litigant who accomplished a presidential case law and wrote a book. Nothing in the page promotes anything election related, and as can be seen in the link, SpiralWidget did not base the reason on anything other than unwarranted suspicions.
In case anybody was following here but not on the subpage, there's a thread at AN/I; just ]. Cheers, ] (] / ]) 16:00, 26 February 2021 (UTC)


2.
===You though it was over?===
– In this instance, SpiralWidget removed information from a discussion with Professor Tim Gilmore about Dimanche's high school teacher Mrs. Callahan, and a very effective way she helped students in. English class. Mrs. Callahan would give students key words from the play Caesar, and have them use them in an essay writing contest that was timed. Dimanche excelled at this and became an outstanding student in Mrs. Callahan's class. SpiralWidget took an issue that is not even contentious and used it to sabotage the article. It is sabotage because Caesar is a play that was actually written by Shakespeare. I don't think any reasonable person would find that as contentious because it was in an English class in high school, and Caesar is just one part of the lessons on Shakespeare. That's like if the interview was about Frankenstein, and the article stated that Dimanche excelled in studying Mary Shelley. It was unnecessary harassment.
There's still some activity on the talk page of the (former POV fork, now redirect); ]; mostly additions of "sources" to an impressive looking table (hint: MEDRS are very scarce...). The talk page shouldn't be used as an indefinite incubator/LINKFARM for a page for which there is no consensus for existence as anything but a redirect. ] (] / ]) 04:31, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
:Also note the suspicious creation of a user sub-page by an IP (seemingly logged-out, probably block evading user, since IPs can't send emails to users) ] who also asks the editor in question about emails (given what we know about canvassing...). Cheers, ] (] / ]) 04:33, 5 March 2021 (UTC)


3.
== User: Foodprofessor ==
– In this instance, SpiralWidget moved a redirect page to drafts after the article was pointed to a different article using Dimanche's full name instead of his nickname. His reason was so that there could be a discussion, but Misplaced Pages's guidance on this clearly states that a formal discussion is not necessary for redirects, and Misplaced Pages's deletion policy discourages deleting duplicate pages. It even encourages editors to delete entire text and replacing it with redirects. Yet, again, SpiralWidget took it upon himself to allege political motivations, and none of it is true.


4.
User is suspected to arm only one person's reputation, Sylvain Charlebois by changing endings. The page fully explains circumstances of an investigation 3 years ago. Foodprofessor's changes are not reasonable, wishes title to imply guilt, but charges were drop three years ago. Name of user also suspicious as Sylvain Charlebois is known as the food professor as well. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 01:15, 28 February 2021 (UTC)</span> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
- After SpiralWidget did that, he then nominated ] for deletion, again alleging that it had something to do with an election for governor in 2026. This is not true. The article talks about Dimanche's humble upbringing, his time spent in prison, his efforts in local politics in Orlando, his art, and a case law he helped accomplish in the 11th Circuit that set precedent regarding the ]. And even if it did, Misplaced Pages has many candidates for office. Misplaced Pages even displays election results, gains by party affiliation, laws introduced, and many other accolades. This is what makes me believe SpiralWidget has some type of animus for Mr. Dimanche, because he constantly makes an issue out of the election, when the article does not focus on that at all.
:Relevant diffs to ]: , and . --] (]) 02:26, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
:P.S. I have notified ] of this discussion. --] (]) 02:32, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
:*{{la|Sylvain Charlebois}}
:*{{user|Janvez}}
:*{{user|Foodprofessor}}
:This is a bit suspect because the BLP subject (Sylvain Charlebois) writes a blog called "The Food Professor", and a new account (Foodprofessor) uses that name while adding a heading "Bullying and Harassment Allegations" to the article ]. I'm not sure if that warrants a user-name block but it probably does. Janvez might be a bit close to the subject but a couple of their edits that I checked look reasonable. @Janvez: Consider reporting at ] in the future. ] (]) 02:41, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
::Or ], I have the impression that there are multiple editors with a conflict of interest, considering the ], —]] – 08:22, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
::Edit was not intended to imply guilt. I suspect ] IS the BLP subject (Sylvain Charlebois) and has been creating and editing his own Misplaced Pages page for years under this username and several additional unregistered IP addresses. Most changes on the page are associated with an unregistered IP address which traces back to Nova Scotia where his campus is located. In addition, ] and his aliases only ever make edits on topics related to Sylvain Charlebois and his perferred topics. Does the BLP policy allow for users to use a page as an infomercial to advance their agenda? ] (]) 03:46, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
:::] Made changes to many pages over the years. Generally suspicious of user:Foodprofessor as I'm aware Sylvain Charlebois was in the news globally of late, criticizing the dairy industry. User Foodprofessor who could be related to dairy just appeared recently, edited the page on issues which happened 3 years ago. A dispute was resolved 3 years ago about this very section. Not necessary to go through this again. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 07:29, 28 February 2021 (UTC)</span>


5.
This is pure nonsense. Why are we wasting our time here? ] (]) 16:10, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
- The vandalism didn't stop there. SpiralWidget then went to ] and nominated that page for deletion as well. Why, because Dimanche was a part of that case. He lied and said that the case was not notable, before asserting that it only made Dimanche look good. This is ridiculous and appears to be hateful. This is a case law, meaning it is not something Dimanche had control over at all. Also, the "Precedential Status" of the law is "Precedential". The case has been cited by judges all across the nation to resolve an additional 178 federal cases. To put that in perspective, ] was cited 2,341 times in resolving federal cases since 1973. This is approximately 46 citations per year. Since ] was passed it averages about 20 citations a year. So for SpiralWidget to lie and say that the case is not notable, when clearly, the judge of this country would state otherwise is nothing more than vandalism. Additionally, Misplaced Pages already found all of the related laws and indexed them accordingly.
:Hi, first accept my apologies because English is not my natural tongue. I'm a sysop on fr-wp. {{user|Janvez}} is know on fr-wiki as a SPA who keeps writing promotional content on Sylvain Charlebois, who created 4 sock-puppets to influence a debate and who keeps doing edit warring against any criticism. Because this SPA only brings promotion, edit warring and sock-puppets, I eventually blocked them on fr-wiki recently. There was edit warring en fr-wiki with Janvez vs {{user|GenesisPRO}} and {{user|DALalumni}} (undergoing RCU). Best regards, - - ] <sup>]]</sup> 19:51, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Weirdly, a was opened by {{u|Foodprofessor}}. Claiming COI on the part of other users.--- ] (]) 22:04, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
:Hi. RCU on fr-wp: {{user|DALalumni}} is probably {{user|GenesisPRO}} - . Best regards, - ] <sup>]]</sup> 09:01, 4 March 2021 (UTC)


] (]) is vandalizing my pages if they even mention Dimanche, and he is doing harm to genuine, good faith editing. I believe the articles about Dimanche are necessary and important because his prison experience is well documented, and his art is unusual. Renown scholars like Tim Gilmore and Nicole Fleetwood have given thoughtful analysis to his art, and the art is widely recognized. I don't think these articles should be nominated for deletion, and I would request that they be taken out of that nomination, and SpiralWidget be prohibited from further editing on the subject of Dimanche.
== REFSPAM and MEAT for ], likely PAID ==


6. List affected articles: ], ], etc.
;Background Info
*]
*]
*]


=== Context ===
;Involved editors
- This behavior has been recurring since SpiralWidget used the ballotpedia link the first time and persists today.
*{{user links|LiamCardigan}}
- I believe this violates Misplaced Pages’s policies and discourages editors from adding to Misplaced Pages.
*{{user links|Khloe Bear}}
*{{user links|Gary Oakman}}
*{{user links|JoeyMaxwell}}
*{{user links|Emmatucker67}}
*{{user links|Holla9211}}
*{{user links|Nicole Hartman}}


I have notified the user on their talk page using ==Notice of noticeboard discussion==
I plan to block the above-mentioned accounts for ] and, based on the ], undisclosed ]. I originally filed ] based on an AIV report from {{U|Pepperbeast}}. LiamCardigan, Khloe Bear, and Emmatucker67 all were adding references to ]'s work without any other substantial contributions. Pepperbeast pointed out {{no ping|Blake Shawl}} and the socks associated there as well as JoeyMaxwell, Gary Oakman, Holla9211, and Nicole Hartman after the initial SPI I filed.
] There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.<!--Template:Discussion notice--><!--Template:AN-notice-->. I kindly request administrative intervention to address this issue.


] (]) 18:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC)</s>
Unfortunately, {{U|Oshwah}} found no CU evidence connecting the accounts, so I strongly suspect MEAT with PAID given that ] were doing the same thing.


:First, you need to read and understand the definition of "vandalism" in ]. Next, you are not allowed to remove properly placed AfD notices until the AfD has been properly closed. I do not see anything improper in Spiralwidget's edits that you linked. I would advise you to drop this complaint and read over our ] before resuming editing. ] 18:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
I recall this happening with another journalist (I don't recall the name off the top of my head), so this seems it may be a wider problem. But for now I wanted to report here and have others '''please review my forthcoming blocks''' to make sure I'm not making an error.
::Thank you for your feedback. I understand that I should not remove AfD notices before they are officially closed, and I will follow the proper procedures moving forward. I will also review WP:Vandalism more thoroughly to ensure I’m taking the correct steps in addressing any inappropriate edits. I appreciate your advice and will proceed accordingly. ] (]) 18:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:Hi! I feel like I need to weigh in here on my perspective.
:*I was reviewing articles on ] back in September (EDIT: Turns out it was November. Seems like longer ago.) and stumbled upon ], which had been submitted by NovembersHeartbeat (Diff1 in the list above). I then found that he was running for Governor of Florida in 2026, and added a comment on the article pointing this out for future reviewers (as I did not feel strongly about the subject, and I am not so familiar with ], which was the main claim of notability).
:*Following this, NovembersHeartbeat responded here https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Draft%3AMoe_Dimanche&diff=1256694716&oldid=1256642401 and accused me of election interference.
:*I then commented on ] because I felt I needed to respond to this. NovembersHeartbeat then responded negatively, but eventually I decided to leave the issue and bookmark ] on my watchlist in order to follow the conversation from then on.
:*On 2 January, earlier today, I opened my Watchlist to see that ] had been moved to mainspace by NovembersHeartbeat. I then pressed the "revert" button, which I wrongly assumed would revert the article to draftspace. Turns out, this was not possible because NovembersHeartbeat had NOT published Moe Dimanche as an article; instead, he had made a new article, ], with a new name, in order to get past the AfC process (which was not going well for Dimanche at all...); as a result, the attempted reversion did not work at all. I then decided that, although I believe I was entitled to go for speedy deletion, I would nominate the article for deletion (I still have ] concerns and I don't think he passes ]) and also nominate ], which has also been created by NovembersHeartbeat recently.
:*In addition, I would like to question whether there is ] going on here. I think a pertinent recent example that looks suspicious to me is the upload of the image https://commons.wikimedia.org/File:Moliere_dimanche.png which was uploaded at 03:26, 1 January 2025 (i.e. 22:26 on 31 December Florida time) by user https://commons.wikimedia.org/User:Moe_Dimanche, who I am assuming is the subject himself in the flesh. This was then added to the article in this edit by NovembersHeartbeat https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Moliere_Dimanche&oldid=1266552816 on 04:40, 1 January 2025 (23:40 on 31 December Florida time). This is only slightly over an hour after the file itself was uploaded, at a time when most people were at a New Years Eve party. I am not making accusations here, but I am concerned that Dimanche is having communication with NovembersHeartbeat. Either that, or NovembersHeartbeat is indulging in ]... Would NovembersHeartbeat like to comment on this? ] (]) 19:05, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::Well, I was advised to drop the complaint, but if you still want answers, I don't mind telling you as I have told you before, I do not have any conflicts of interest. Your whole approach to this topic just seems personal. Even here, the content of the article is not in question, the facts are not in question, you just seem to believe that I am the subject. I made this complaint because I feel like what you are doing is harassment, and you might know the subject yourself or have some type of rivalry against him. I thought Misplaced Pages had a mechanism to prevent that, and I was wrong. I don't know what else to tell you. ] (]) 19:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:I checked diff 2 in the complaint, and Spiralwidget is correct: the source does not support the text. Spiralwidget was justified in removing it. ]&nbsp;] 22:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::"Mrs. Callahan would give students key words from the play Caesar, and have them use them in an essay writing contest that was timed. Dimanche excelled at this" is from NovHeartbeats, but none of this is in the source. How does November know so much about how these assignments worked? Was November in the classroom, or is November using sources the rest of us can't see? ] (]) 23:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::The exact text from the source is {{quote|"And I had a really good English class back at West Orange High School in Orlando. Ms. Callahan. I couldn’t wait to get to her class. She’d give us a certain amount of time to write a story with keywords from a play we were reading, like Julius Caesar."}} The source says exactly what you just quoted. ] (]) 00:02, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::::The source says nothing about whether he was good in the class ("excelled") nor does it say "he enjoyed studying Shakespeare". ]&nbsp;] 00:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::::The source doesn't mention any contests as you seem to know about. And its an interview of Moliere, with two single line questions asked by the interviewer. It definitely doesn't support anything except Moliere saying he had a favorite class, which isn't encyclopedic. ] (]) 00:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)


] ] 17:31, 1 March 2021 (UTC) This is discussion is turning into a content dispute, which doesn't belong here. There's a bit of ] going on but right now I don't see a need for admin intervention for either editor. ]] 15:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:<s>Notifications in a few minutes., ] ] 17:34, 1 March 2021 (UTC)</s> Notifications completed. ] ] 17:53, 1 March 2021 (UTC)


While there is a content dispute in play here, I think behavior is a problem as well...but it's largely by the OP. Remarks like " is vandalizing '''my''' pages" ('''emphasis''' added). {{ping|NovembersHeartbeat}}, I would strongly advise that you read ], ], ], and ]. These aren't your pages. Anyone can edit them. If you have a disagreement, then bring it to the talk page. What you are describing as vandalism, is normal editing and disagreement; I would encourage you to ] as they are inherently hostile when unsubstantiated. This is a normal part of the collaborative editing process. If you don't, your complaints will not only be ignored, but ]. I understand that people may feel that some subjects aren't notable to get their own page and nominations for deletion can feel personal. I've weighed in for inclusion on the subject. Try not to take it personally. ] (]) 19:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Question:''' What is the connection of the ] article's two primary editors, ] and ] -- both of whom have '''''only''''' edited that article, and nothing else on Misplaced Pages -- to the editors you blocked? ] (]) 23:49, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
{{abot}}
:*Those two users notified. ] (]) 23:53, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
:*] here -- not sure if this is where to respond (I'm not familiar enough with editing here to be useful, which is why i haven't contributed much since working on the ] page). Should I respond here, ]? ] (]) <!--Template:Undated--><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added 14:32, 3 March 2021 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::*{{u|Gravitymonkey}} You could start by answering whether you have a ] in regard to Urbina, and whether you have any relationship with ]. ] (]) 02:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
::*{{u|Beyond My Ken}} I do know Urbina, we've met via email back in 2005 when I served as a source on some of his work at The New York Times (won't go into more detail), and occasionally communicated via email since. I did start a bunch of work on his page a few years back, as you noted. I don't know who Eli is -- I've never met/communicated with him. Are you requesting that I add COI tags or similar to his page? <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 11:37, 7 March 2021 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Xsign -->
:::*{{U|Gravitymonkey}} It's just my opinion (I'm not an admin), but I think you're OK as is. ] (]) 02:17, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
* {{re|EvergreenFir}} Thanks! Could you also have a look at {{user links|Giantwombat}}? The user has added lots of links to news articles by Ian Urbina (but also some other journalists). Maybe PAID not just by Urbina? — ] (]) 15:53, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
::Spotted another one... ] ] ] 16:36, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

== Eyes on ] and ] ==

Apparently, Mike Lindell, CEO of My Pillow, made a speech at CPAC where he called Misplaced Pages "very corrupt" for having "taken over my Misplaced Pages", by which I assume he means "his" Misplaced Pages page. (Once again, a public figure misunderstands the purpose of Misplaced Pages, taking it to be a promotional medium, and believing that they can control "their" Misplaced Pages article.)

Both articles are semi'd but additional eyes on them would still be a good idea, in case anyone gets the idea that settling the score would be appropriate. ] (]) 19:05, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
:{{thumbs up}} ] ] 19:07, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
::RE: "taken over ''my Misplaced Pages"'' (emphasis added) — unforgivable lowercase. It's {{tq|'''<big>M</big>y Misplaced Pages'''}}, to you, philistines! You'll sleep soundly knowing the project is in good hands. I know I will. ] 13:22, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
:::Just in the interest of good recordkeeping, noting that I am the one who indef semi'd ] (] AP2 action). And, unrelated-relatedly, I've also indef semi'd the ] redirect, of which I am the creator (). An unlogged and <u>INVOLVED</u> AE action — the corruption on my part is almost unbelievable! Erm, I mean, firing lasers: '''pew-pew!''' ] 17:12, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
:Regarding "my Misplaced Pages" vs. "My Misplaced Pages" - this was from a spoken speech so we can't tell if he capitalized it or not. In his mind I'm sure he capitalized it (possibly ALLCAPS). The <s>philistine</s> <s>Philistine</s> philistine is the transcript recorder. You can't get good help these days. -- ] (]) 17:46, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
::I am the philistine here. According to Wikipedias articles, Philistines are an ancient people and are capitalized; philistines are people too lazy or ignorant to know the difference. Self-description acknowledged. -- ] (]) 17:53, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

== Problem with editor (Vandalism + Calling everything "right wing propaganda") ==
{{hat|result=Boomerang TBAN from American politics. Collapse as courtesy <span style="white-space: nowrap;">— ]]​</span> 04:18, 4 March 2021 (UTC)}}
I have a problem with {{ping|Fram}}, who is determined to prevent the creation of an article called "Cancellation of Dr. Seuss" and called it "Right-wing propaganda article" in an edit summary.

What happened in order:
-I created the article with 3 RS (NBC, CBS, Wall Street Journal) + Fox News article which isn't considered RS.

-I add it to ] since it was gaining mention on a lot more RS (will mention later).

-I add more information which included an ABC article (Considered RS)

-Fram moves it to draft state with the edit summary "Extreme POV / slanted article (and title)".

-I move it back to article space as the article being moved had no discussion and was messing up the format on the ].

-I started a discussion on Fram's talk page to talk and ask why he thought it was slanted with RS from both political sides. See ].
-Fram reverts my edit on the ] with no edit summary.

-I revert his edit back on the Portal due to no edit summary.

-Fram moves it to a draft with the edit summary of "Right-wing propaganda article". Technically there isn't any "right wing" RS as all the RS listed are slanted "left wing".

-I move it back to article space.

-Fram reverts my edit on the portal with the edit summary of "Article is in draft space as a NPOV violation"

-I add a vandalism warning to his talk page (level 2).

-Fram removes the vandalism warning from his talk page with the edit summary of "Removing Fake Warning".

-Fram warns me on my talk page (see User talk:Elijahandskip#WP:NPOV]]).

-I message him that it isn't "right wing propaganda" as multiple RS are reporting on it.

-The article is back in draft state & removed from the Current event portal.

-I start the admin board.

With all the moving and stuff, I can't link every single change, so here is a list of the places for it. , , , , .

Need an admin to solve this problem ASAP. ] (]) 14:21, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

*I honestly really don't care too much about the article now, but I am concerned with the edit summary "Right wing propaganda" as it made headlines in tons of RS. A google search of "Dr. Seuss Cancelled" brings dozens of news articles from the RS (Both political parties and AP News, which is basically neutral). That is a '''big red-flag''' for me. ] (]) 14:23, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

::Just a brief word from an uninvolved onlooker--while this has certainly received plenty of coverage in reliable sources, framing it as "cancellation of Dr. Seuss" strikes me as not the most neutral choice. Cheers. ] (]) 14:30, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
:::{{u|Dumuzid}} Yeah, in hindsight, I see that. The adminboard isn't for the article problems. I am more concerned that an editor is calling all RS "right-wing propaganda". Depending on this noticeboard (Basically if the topic isn't perm blocked) I will work on creating a 100% NPOV draft article to move to article space. Still thinking about the title, but in the current state, I am honestly worried about any new draft just being speedy deleted by {{u|Fram}} due to the crazy edit summaries he is doing. ] (]) 14:33, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
::::<small>(])</small> It probably belongs in the main Seuss article, with "cancelled" attributed as someone's opinion (], ]), —]] – 15:19, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

:When you create an article with a title making a claim only used in Fox News + an opinion piece in the WSJ, and with the first line a BLP violation against Joe Biden sourced only to Fox News, then you shouldn't complain that your article gets moved to draft space or is considered right wing propaganda. Claiming here that "Technically there isn't any "right wing" RS as all the RS listed are slanted "left wing"." is rather disingenious: you used Fox News to attack Biden, you don't deny that Fox News is (very) right wing, you just deny that it is a RS. Fine, but then why use it? If you agree that Fox News isn't a RS, then you shouldn't have started this AN discussion (or tried repeatedly to get the page in the mainspace and in the Portal Current Events), but should have replied with an indication that you would drop the unreliable POV source and edit the draft article accordingly. ] (]) 15:15, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
:Note that the same editor just a few days ago had to delete their article at ]. There seems to be some common theme here. ] (]) 15:18, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
::{{ping|Fram}}, so you are saying that because of a Fox News article and opinion piece, you called the other RS "right wing propaganda"? Also the other article is irrelevant in this discussion. This is about you and me fighting in this article and you calling AP News "right wing propaganda". This topic is notable and is slanted just due to the nature of it. I will rework the draft article excluding those 2 sources as I have 5 RS still. If we have a problem again, I will go higher... ] (]) 15:24, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
:::Where did I say that ''all'' sources in that article were right wing? What I said was that the article ''you'' wrote was a right-wing propaganda piece, mixing some neutral sources about one event (the publishers decision to stop printing some of Seuss' books) with severely biased ones, deciding to present the POV of those latter sources as the basis for your title and for the rather inflammatory start of the article (a start which wasn't supported in any of the RS). So yes, I stand by my opinion that you created a right-wing propaganda piece where you added some RS to give your BLP violation / attack piece an air of legitimacy. ] (]) 15:31, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
:(ec)And looking at their created articles, I note the following deleted ones; ], ], ], ]. Perhaps it's time to think of a post-1992 US politics ban? ] (]) 15:27, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
::They seem to like the "sensationalist" article titles, they created ] ignoring an ongoing discussion of the use Assassination too. ]] (] 15:30, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
:::Agreed. And there's quite a bit of rhetoric in their editing history about Misplaced Pages being biased against the truth, which is not a great sign. ] (]) 16:15, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
*{{Ping|Fram}} & {{ping|Joseph2302}}, I withdraw my adminboard notice about Fram. There is no reason to go to a ban on post 1992 topics. All I do on Misplaced Pages is help improve current event topics. Back in April 2020, I helped revive the WikiProject of Current Events from years of hibernation. I understand that I caused problems in the past with those topics and I got warned for those topics along with other editors. I only want to help improve Misplaced Pages and I really enjoy understanding Current events. So please, let us forget this happened, move on, and continue improving Misplaced Pages for the better. I promise to not try and create any drafts or articles about the Dr. Seuss issue, but instead, will use RS to help improve articles. I really am sorry for problems I cause on Misplaced Pages. I just think differently than most people, but I still want to help improve Misplaced Pages for the future. ] (]) 16:11, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
I'd agree with a TBAN from post-1992 politics. This is the same user who has a history of naming Misplaced Pages editors on his personal blog (which he only stopped after two discussions and significant admin pressure), maintained links to sketchy sites on his userpage (taking down the one to Breitbart again only after admin pressure), and has set up his own alternative Misplaced Pages where his deleted articles have gone to live. I don't have the sense that there's much potential here for NPOV editing of American political issues. For a relatively new user, he's already generated quite a bit of timesink. ] (]) 16:13, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
::Please no. I really am sorry. I will take a break from editing Misplaced Pages and will come back and I promise that I will edit with NPOV. Current events is why I edit Misplaced Pages. Please, give me another chance and I promise I will not disappoint. Please. ] (]) 16:18, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
I've been concerned about Elijahandskip's judgement in US politics related topics since I first came across a ] at ], in the course of which Elijahandskip criticised editors by name in their off-wiki blog. Elijahandskip then added to me to a list of editors on their user page who {{xt|"who show a strong biased on a talk page or edit summary have a potential to have edit wars with Elijahandskip"}}, presumably based on the fact that I (along with others) advised them to remove the blog post. At ] I ], also later expressed by another editor, that adding the article (which was eventually deleted as being factually incorrect/misleading) to the current affairs portal, driving up views to the page, was a serious misjudgement that might border on advocacy. ] my "accusation" as invalid because {{xt|"we have had problems in the past"}} and demanded an apology. I can't speak about their contributions outside of political topics, but within US politics I don't believe Elijahandskip has the required competence to edit constructively, and they've repeatedly demonstrated an adversarial attitude of viewing collegial criticism as ]. ] • ] 16:24, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
:{{small|Conspiracy? What conspiracy? ]. ] (] · ]) 16:32, 2 March 2021 (UTC)}}

Is there any way I can prove I am competent to edit US politic topics? I want to try to show that I can. I am afraid that if I do get banned, I will never have a chance to show that I have matured. My last problem was back in January and since then, I have been working hard on constructive editing which included 4 ITN nominations. Today was miscommunication between me and Fram and I foolishly involved others when I needed to talk to him. Just let me show that I have changed is all I am asking. ] (]) 16:29, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Preventing the ''creation'' of an article about ''cancellation''. Somehow, there's a common theme in that action. ] (]) 16:33, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Please don't ban me from editing Post 1992 Politic articles. I promise you that I have matured from where I was back in November to January which is where most of my problems occurred. I can't prove that I have matured other than talking about my contributions in February. 4 successful ITN nominations with one of those being an article I created. As I stated earlier, miscommunication lead to this and I don't want a stupid mistake to ruin what I have been trying to improve on over the last month. Please. Just give me another chance to help prove to you guys that I have matured. Please. ] (]) 16:39, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
:Well, if you annoy enough editors, enough times on this general topic (post-1992 US politics), the end result will be a topic-ban. ] (]) 17:05, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
*{{u|Elijahandskip}} You ask how you can prove that you are competent to edit in this topic area. I think that a good way to start would be for your to read through the comments that Fram and other editors have made, take a bit of time to digest them, and then explain why that draft is unfit for publication as an article. As things stand, I'm not sure that you understand why it's unpublishable, which would indeed mean that you aren't competent to edit in that topic area. ]] 17:27, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
:*The draft in question is ] which is a really shoddy piece of work in its current form that begins with a cheap shot against Joe Biden for ''not'' mentioning Dr. Seuss in a proclamation about children's reading programs, as if he is somehow obligated to mention that author. Consider this editor's insistence that this matter is widely discussed in reliable sources, mentioning the Associated Press, NBC and ABC. The fact of the matter is that ABC and NBC simply reprinted the Associated Press story. That's one source not three. Selection of the politically charged term "Cancellation" for the title indicates a complete failure of the neutral point of view. Misplaced Pages needs conservative editors who are competent, careful, collaborative and mature. This editor is none of those things, as their user page shows. '''Support''' topic ban from post 1992 U.S. politics. ] ] 17:49, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

:::(Edit conflict before Cullen328){{u|Girth Summit}} (Pinging due to edit conflict) I have read through all the comments (Starting with the draft in question) and I would like to explain why it is unpublishable as an article. So the whole problem appears to be the title & lead sentence which was "The cancellation of Dr. Seuss began on March 1, 2021, when President of the United States, Joe Biden, erased Dr. Seuss books from "Read Across America" day which is a day to honor Dr. Seuss's birthday on March 2.". As far as I can tell, the rest of the information has no problems with Fram (Saying him as the others joined after I started this discussion). The title "Cancellation of Dr. Seuss" 100% violated NPOV as it directly isn't a cancellation of Dr. Seuss, just the removal of publication of some books. Early on in this discussion (before Fran's first reply), I acknowledged that it was a poor choice of words to use. Now let me talk about the lead. It was a horrible lead that was mixed with opinion and facts. The opinion part was "erased Dr. Seuss books from "Read Across America" day". Joe Biden never removed all (All being the key word) Dr. Seuss books from the "Read Across America Day". The lead was also sourced to two non-RS sources. That was a major problem. The lead should always be sourced with RS and all information on the article should be sourced with RS for that matter. I do see how Fran's and other editors thought I was attacking Joe Biden as I made a false statement in the lead about him cancelling Dr. Seuss books, which he never did. I also made a mistake on the WSJ article as I forgot to check if it was "news" vs "opinion". The Fox News article shouldn't have been added since the WSJ was an opinion piece. I know Misplaced Pages has no consensus on Fox News (Per the discussion here:]), but I don't see a problem adding it when (when being a keyword) an RS backs up what it said. Because I didn't check the WSL article out, I foolishly added 2 non-rs together and called it RS. That was a mistake I made and in the future, I will make sure to check the articles out more closely before adding them. Hopefully you (the editors involved in this discussion) can see that I understand the mistakes I made and that I am sorry for making them. I caused massive problems on Misplaced Pages from October to January (totally about 112 pages worth of discussions from comments I made). But, I have been really working to improve on my bad reputation and do constructive editing on Misplaced Pages. Hopefully you guys don't decide to ban me on Post-1992 US political articles and can see that I am truly sorry for this. ] (]) 17:56, 2 March 2021 (UTC)


== Repeated tool abuse by ] ==
:::Adding since I had a new comment from Cullen328. Cullen328 exactly stated what I said was my mistakes. I do understand the mistakes I made, but I really don't want a stupid mistake of miscommunication to cause me to lose all that I have tried to build back during February. So from the bottom of my heart, please, let me have another chance on Misplaced Pages and I promise I will not let you (editors in this discussion) down. ] (]) 17:56, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
{{atop|Not tool abuse. The IPv6 editor should discuss this with FlightTime, not ANI ] ] 06:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)}}
::::'''support TBan'''. This answer touches on some of the things that are wrong with that draft, but it's really only scratching the surface. Add to that the fact that just a few hours ago, the user was so convinced that the article was legitimate that they were willing to edit war it back into article space, accuse Fram of vandalism, and start a thread here. I think that 6 months working in less contentious areas would be in the user's own interest - seriously, this isn't intended to punish you, this will help you hone your skills and become better at this. ]] 18:15, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
I have been working on the article ] with a view to possibly improving it to featured article status at some point in the future. At this point, the edits are mostly restructuring to bring the article into a shape that can then be further developed, depending what it still needs when that first step is done. {{U|FlightTime}} took exception to some edit I made between 22nd and 23rd of December , without clarifying exactly which edit they thought was problematic. We had , and . At that point, I believed we had cleared the air, and the situation would not repeat itself.
:::Just as an FYI, the date was chosen because it was Dr. Seuss' birthday and Presidents make note of that in the proclamation. ] <sup>]</sup> 02:44, 3 March 2021 (UTC)


However, today, they of mine, all in one go, again without any explanation of which edit(s) they felt were problematic. Thus, they make it impossible to discuss or remedy what they felt was the problem. In my opinion, this constitutes tool abuse, and if they cannot improve their communication with IP users and ideally use the tools in a more targeted way, this is a problem for the community.
*'''This should be closed also. Original reason was withdrawn 8 hours ago.''' ] (]) 03:13, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
** I'm not going to IAR here; the top-level thread can be closed by someone who is actually uninvolved. ] (], ]) 03:16, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
*Although a TBAN was imposed, I am concerned, based on many of the frantic responses above and below this, that Elijahandskip lacks the ] required to contribute to Misplaced Pages in a collegiate manner. The off-wiki score-settling is certainly not a good look. If any further disruption occurs outside of this subject matter, we ought to consider the need for additional sanctions. For now, perhaps a warning would suffice.--''']'''-''<small>(])</small>'' 14:02, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
::A double "punishment" would be too much. The section below was about me. This section should be closed as it was withdrawn almost a day ago. This has just turned into a mess. A tBan is a major wakeup call to me. Honestly, I am considering this staying open an entire day more than it should have been like bullying. Basically no matter how much I would change, people will use this large discussion with tons of ban supports after the discussion should have been closed against me. This is just sad...] (]) 17:02, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
:::AN/ANI discussions (really, this was better off at ] to begin with) of issues regarding editor conduct are not closed just because of withdrawal of the original complaint. All parties should expect to have their conduct examined. See ].--''']'''-''<small>(])</small>'' 17:07, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
::::Yeah, but a TBan for 6 months is a huge thing. If I get a 2nd warning on top of a TBan for the same thing, that is pure bullying definition... ] (]) 17:11, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
::::::::{{u|Elijahandskip}} Drive-by suggestion from an uninvolved editor. You have made your point. Now would be an excellent time for you to ], walk away, and beginning editing constructively in other topic areas. ] (]) 18:04, 3 March 2021 (UTC)


Thank you for your time and consideration, and any help in getting to a more constructive collaboration on this article.


] (]) 00:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
===AP2 topic ban imposed (AE)===
{{atop|IAR close; Elijahandskip accepts the TBAN as imposed and doesn't want discussion. I am INVOLVED and not an admin, but this can be closed. ] (], ]) 03:11, 3 March 2021 (UTC)}}
Please note that I have imposed a 6-month ] ] ] on Elijahandskip (] AE action). As I note in the log, if this discussion reaches consensus for a different outcome, will amend accordingly. ] 18:03, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
*'''Support''' 6-month ban, which will allow Elijahandskip time to demonstrate by editing other articles that they've taken in the comments here and used that feedback to adjust their editing behavior. This seems necessary as Elijahandskip's responses to Fram's critique of the article were unreservedly combative until a ban was mentioned at which point they did a complete turn-around of attitude. It shouldn't take the possibility of ban to make Elijahandskip listen to other editors or to discuss disagreements or to respond to criticisms. ]&nbsp;] 18:17, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Elijahandskip has stated they want to work on current events; there are plenty of those that don't involve American politics. Editing in other areas for six months will give them a chance to demonstrate their growth and competence. ] (]) 19:10, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
*'''Support''' AP2 topic ban for 6 months, an appropriate response to the editor's behavior. Also, has there already been a discussion about their username "Elijah *and* skip" indicating an account used by more than one person? ] (]) 19:47, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
*:].-- ] (]) 20:22, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
*'''Support''' the imposed AP2 break is needed, though 6 months feels long to me; I'd be fine with 3 months. ] (], ]) 23:35, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
*:At first I wondered the same, but , ], ], and changed my mind; I now worry, conversely, that 6 months may be too short a time to build and demonstrate the necessary maturity and competence to edit in this area. ] (]) 02:54, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Grandpallama}} I don't want to cause trouble, but you linked a message I asked to an admin to help me avoid future problems and you call that a problem. That is just sad... ] (]) 03:02, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
*I've noticed that some users have a strong emotional aversion to the idea of a topic ban or other sanction being imposed. They are more likely to stick around and edit other topics if it's a voluntary decision rather than a ban. Based on their comments above, I wonder if this might be the case here. So what about an alternative: would you be willing to ''voluntarily'' stop editing articles related to American politics for a while (say, six months), working on other topics in the meantime? The effect is indeed largely the same, but no sanction would be logged, and there would be no more or less automatic block if you fail to stay away (but, realistically, you'd be bank here in the same position). Just a thought. &mdash; <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 02:48, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
**Ah. Based on the supports I misunderstood the purpose of this section to be a proposal rather than notification. My mistake. &mdash; <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 02:49, 3 March 2021 (UTC)


: This is not tool abuse, you are being reverted with reasons, and you should discuss the matter with FlightTime. ] (]) 00:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
'''Why is this still open? ''' I withdrew the original reason for the noticeboard. This just seems to have turned into a lot of editors who want me banned. I have alreayd been banned and accepted it. Can and admin just close this before more editors make me feel worse than I had to be. (6 support votes after the ban was 100% uncalled for as the discussion should have just been closed after I withdrew and the ban notice was put out. I mean come on now that is ridiculous. (Not the support votes, the fact it was left open for the support votes). ] (]) 02:53, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
:I'm not sure what you mean {{tq|without any explanation}} as his clearly documents his reason as {{tq|Reverted good faith edits by 2A02:8071:184:4E80:0:0:0:EAC0 (talk): Unsourced, unexplained content removal, unsourced OR}}. Please note that he did assume good faith (not maliciousness), and that he appears at first glance correct that you were removing content without reason, and adding unsourced and/or original research to the article, which is not permitted. Please use the article talk page at: ] or talk to the editor directly on their talk page at ] and work on building consensus instead of readding the same or similar content to the article. ]&thinsp;] 01:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
: Well, I was saying that the ban was more harsh than it needed to be, but if you don't want an "appeal"/discussion of the ban and want this closed it should probably be closed by someone uninvolved. ] (], ]) 03:03, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
::Again, which are the pieces that you are now objecting to? We are talking about 17 edits, so please be specific! Thank you. ] (]) 06:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::{{u|Power~enwiki}}, an appeal is 100% useless and I do deserve the ban. In a few months I might try to appeal, but I have to prove that I can change before appealing. (Also I did appeal but withdrew it. The appeal was for technicality since my 3000+ byte message was posted 1 minute before the ban, so I tried to get it removed so that new very long thing could be taken into consideration. It was denied by the banning admin so I withdrew before it became official.) I just want this discussion to be close as it is now at 8 hours after it should have been closed... ] (]) 03:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
{{abot}} {{abot}}
{{hab}}


== Emoji redirect ==
== Ban removal request of ] ==
{{atop|result=Declined. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">— ]]​</span> 03:30, 4 March 2021 (UTC)}} {{atop|👌 - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)}}
As a courtesy, I am posting below a statement from Bus stop from UTRS in which they request their ban to be removed. I make no endorsement in doing so and have no views on the matter. ] (]) 02:05, 3 March 2021 (UTC) Was trying to create ] as a redirect to ]; the film does not actually have a title and was represented in posters by the ] aka the ]. Apparently the emojis are on a blacklist, it would be great if someone can create this rd, thanks. ] (]) 01:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)


:{{Done}}. ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 01:48, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
''From a sourcing point of view there can be no doubt that Einstein was Jewish. But it was determined, based on such policies as WP:ONUS and WP:CONSENSUS, that the Albert Einstein article should not pointedly state "Einstein was Jewish". The other editors preferred the language "was born into a Jewish family". WP:ONUS tells us: "While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, not all verifiable information needs to be included in an article...consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted". This information was clearly verifiable but consensus determined that its inclusion would not improve the article. I WP:BLUDGEONED at: https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Albert_Einstein#Einstein_and_Jewishness I should not have argued against a longstanding WP:CONSENSUS which did not want to pointedly state that Einstein was Jewish. The other editors weighing in to that discussion disagreed with the edit I was suggesting and I should have respected their opinion when it became obvious that consensus was against me. While I cannot undo the past I can vow never to do that again. I bludgeoned (WP:BLUDGEONED) the article Talk page and I offer this sincere commitment to not be overly argumentative at article Talk pages again. I am asking that my account be un-blocked so that I may continue to constructively edit Misplaced Pages. Thank you. User:Bus stop''<!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span>
:. ]] 03:34, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
*After their November 2020 AP2 topic ban: After their September 2019 ban from AN: Fool me once, fool me twice, but three times? ]&nbsp;<small>]</small> 03:39, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
*'''Comment'''. Bludgeon in excelsis. ] (]) 04:21, 3 March 2021 (UTC).
*'''Oppose removing site ban''' - The site ban was only imposed on 19 February . It's much too soon for any consideration of removing the ban. They should come back a minimum of six months from now. If they file another request before then, the community should consider formally imposing a time limit of 1 year before they are eligible for re-instatement. ] (]) 05:15, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
*Performance art? Is that quote real: did Bus stop really continue banging on about Einstein and Jewishness? ] (]) 09:19, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. ] (]) 09:30, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' I see no reason why we should believe that Bus stop would be capable of avoiding bludgeoning.] ] 09:39, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - from reading all the information about this case I see no reason to believe that Bus stop can be trusted to cease their disruption/bludgeoning so soon after being banned. I agree with BMK, come back in six months and take up the ]. ] <small>( ] · ] )</small> 09:53, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. Lift a ban on someone whose response to a discussion about their bludgeoning was to escalate the bludgeoning in the discussion about the bludgeoning to the extent that they had to be blocked from taking any further part in it? And after two previous promises to stop bludgeoning following two previous (and relatively recent) topic bans? And after exhibiting exactly the same behaviour for ''years'' without any sign of any willingness or ability to stop? No, Bus stop really needs to learn that there are serious consequences to continuing with this obsessive and disruptive behaviour, and lifting the ban after yet another "''Sorry, I won't do it again''" will not achieve that. I think we'd need an absolute minimum of the six-month SO period to let the consequences properly sink in. (Oh, and making this request so soon after the ban shows serious bad judgment, in my view, and suggests a failure to reflect properly). ] (]) 10:00, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per ]. ] ] ] 13:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Asking for a removal of the ban not even 2 weeks after it's implemented? Way too soon, I would agree with BMK about the 6 month wait. My other concern would be that they already have had 2 ban for this same beahvior. It hasn't changed. ] (]) 13:12, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
*While I'm not concerned people here are going to unban Bus Stop, it's worth stating for the record that this user has sent ArbCom roughly a dozen emails about the block, sometimes two or more a day, demonstrating a complete lack of clue (especially when they wonder why they're getting blocked for spamming from the system ''when they're spamming the system''.) Any declaration that they have learned the meaning of bludgeon should be taken with little faith when their actions demonstrate the opposite. ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 13:46, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' and as per {{np|Beyond My Ken}}, a minimum of six months before we'll consider an unblock, extending to a year if they violate this restriction. That would apply across all media; UTRS, ArbCom, etc. --] (]) 14:17, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' we've heard this story before several times. Take your time off, spend six months not socking or doing anything else and then come back and resubmit under standard offer. Request then would still need to be more convincing than the repeated I won't do it again. ] ] 14:22, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Six months is the absolute minimum. It's clear they haven't learnt anything yet about why they were banned.-- ] (]) 14:42, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Not only a 6 month minimum as suggested, but the request per OTRS is just more example of what got Bus Stop banned in the first place in terms of a combination of bludgeoning, IDHT, and seemingly not having a clue about the reasoning for the ban. --] (]) 14:47, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
*'''thanks''', {{yo|331dot}}, for making this unban request possible. --<b>] ]</b> 14:52, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
*'''comment''' Wait, multi ArbCom appeals of a CBAN for ''bludgeoning'', saying "I won't bludgeon"? Okey dokey. --<b>] ]</b> 14:54, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' The Einstein page , it was just the straw that broke the camel's back. ] 15:34, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per everyone else. It is too soon, there is no indication that the behavior has been corrected, etc. Cheers. ] (]) 15:51, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' because Bus stop has several times committed to no more bludgeoning, per GorillaWarfare and others above. He sounds convincing now and sounded convincing then, and I do think he meant it all three times — meant it in the moment — but it's getting more and more difficult to believe the bludgeoning will actually stop. Also, asking after a mere two weeks is a little ridiculous, as many have pointed out. ] &#124; ] 15:55, 3 March 2021 (UTC).
*'''Oppose''' because I agree with every comment above. ] ] 17:14, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' the block/ban of Bus Stop was correct. If you look at their history, they used to be a constructive article-space contributor. However the current history shows they mainly edit talk pages, for what I would characterize as argumentative entertainment purposes. They are the master of discussion bludgeoning, with many past apologies followed by more bludgeoning. Rinse, repeat.--- ] (]) 17:39, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
*'''Bemused'''. Hard to describe the feeling I got when I looked at my watchlist for the first time in over a week, and Bus stop was at AN ''again''. It seems like a very Misplaced Pages-style thing to do: look at a thread, see that 17 people have opposed something and none have supported it, and feel oddly ''compelled'' to add an additional oppose anyway. I'd close this early - in spite of the sinking feeling that some rule somewhere says it needs to stay open X hours - in order to save the 18th thru 50th Wikipedians from themselves, but someone would likely revert because of The Rules, and then even more time would be wasted arguing about ''that''. So I'd like to gently suggest that no further comment is needed here unless someone supports lifting the ban. I'll start it off, and avoid the impulse to pile on, by summoning all my will power and not casting a vote. Though the impulse to pontificate was harder to resist. --] (]) 18:04, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Bus stop's IDHT is frankly comical. He really doesn't get it does he? ] (]) 21:10, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
{{abot}} {{abot}}


== Topic ban appeal ==
== ]: 0RR without explanation or expiration date ==


Hello, I have a topic ban that is approaching one year old on "undiscussed moves, move discussions, deletion discussions, and racial issues broadly construed (including topics associated with the Confederate States of America)". I would like an opportunity to contribute to these topics again. I have been fairly inactive since then but I have edited a few articles without issue. Thank you. ] (]) 04:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
A little background before I get to my request: As some of you know, among other topics, I'm a regular over at ], particularly topics related to folklore studies. Late 2019, I encountered a huge amount of advertisements from ] while visiting the US. This featured lots of colorful costumes, featured heavy emphasis on 'tradition', and was heavily marketed as a 'cultural experience'. I soon found that behind this dance company is a new religious movement called ], which had not only been aggressively supporting extreme right-wing groups here in Germany by way of its various news outlets (like the '']'') but also soon started making headlines in the United States in their tremendous support for fringe stuff.


:I'll kick off by asking the standard two questions: (1) please explain in your own words why you were topic banned; (2) do you have anything to say to convince everyone those same issues won't occur again? ]] 14:01, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
When I encountered it, somehow English Misplaced Pages's Falun Gong article made no mention of important topics like Falun Gong and Shen Yun's compound and ''de facto'' headquarters, ] (as you can see, we now have an entire article on this). The article even somehow managed to avoid referring to Falun Gong as a ''new religious movement'' despite a tremendous amount of peer-reviewed academic sources describing the group as exactly that at every turn. These are just a few of the issues from which the article suffered.
::I was topic banned for not assuming good faith and making an allegation that someone was using a sockpuppet when I was unable to provide substantial evidence. The topic ban was appealable after 3 months but I stepped away for almost a year. I am ready to discuss these topics respectfully and understand the importance of patience and communication. ANI should be a last resort. ] (]) 18:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Can you provide a link to the discussion where this topic ban was imposed? Thank you. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Found it. ]. ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 04:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Thank you. That is helpful to have. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 07:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:* I '''support lifting the ban.''' DI's talk page makes for interesting reading, it shows quite a remarkable change in attitude over a period of a few years, and I believe that's genuine. ]] 08:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''Oppose lifting the topic ban''' I think being warned for making edits that violating a topic ban, then being almost completely inactive for six months, and then coming back and asking for it to be lifted and that passing sets a horrible example. ] ] 06:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
*:It seemed like a good idea to step away from the site for a time. I was receptive to the warning, even though it was not from an admin, and stopped editing in that area entirely. These are the edits in question: I just forgot that I had to appeal the topic ban here first and haven't gotten around to it until now. It should be noted that the first edit merely restored a previous RFC that had been ignored and the last two were minor changes to articles that have since been restored.
*:I have never made a different account or tried to dishonestly avoid the topic ban and I never will. All I ask is that you ] and give me a chance to show that I can contribute collaboratively and have matured. ] (]) 21:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
* Only 106 edits since unblocking (including the unblocking), of which includes apparently no edits to article talkpages, which is where a lot of the issues emerged. There's not much to really evaluate change. ] (]) 07:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
*:I have largely avoided getting involved in article talk pages in order to avoid violating the topic ban. If I were to get involved in these topics to demonstrate change, it would be in violation of the topic ban. Seems like a catch-22. ] (]) 20:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
*::There are literally millions of articles and talk pages not covered by your topic ban. You are expected to demonstrate change there. Why on earth do you think this makes it a catch-22 situation?!? --] (]) 22:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::I have made plenty of edits to articles like ], ], ], and ] in the meantime without issue, there was no need to discuss it on the talk page. I have tried to make clear edit summaries and contribute to the encyclopedia. ] (]) 22:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''Oppose lifting the topic ban'''. As per Chipmunkdavis, there have been very few edits since the unblock in February 2024. Although DesertInfo says "I have made plenty of edits", I just don't see enough here to justify lifting the topic ban. I'll also note that at least some of these edits came close to violating the topic ban (see ] for example). --] (]) 23:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''Oppose at this time''' I appreciate that you walked away rather than risk violating the ban. that shows some recognition of the issue and willingness to try and do something about it. However, what we would want to see would be a decent track record of editing over a sustained period without any hint of violating the ban, and you are just not there yet. ] ] 23:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
*:I have edited multiple articles without issue. I don't understand why I would edit articles I'm not interested in/knowledgeable about. I don't want to add useless info or talk page comments for the sake of adding it. I have tried to contribute to articles I know something about. The topic ban is very broad and could reasonably be argued to cover most history/politics subjects.
*:I made a genuine mistake half a year ago that was not egregious and did not violate the topic ban, only coming close. When reminded of the topic ban, I stopped immediately. The topic ban was appealable after 3 months. I was told to step away from editing entirely for a long period of time and I did:
*:This ban has been in place been in place since 2022, over 3 years. A lot has changed and I have matured greatly. ] (]) 23:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
*::The topic ban is not so broad as to cut off most of en.wiki. Aside from the move and deletion restrictions, which are technical and do not restrict editing from any particular page, the topic ban is just "racial issues broadly construed". Do you really feel that this covers every article you are either interested in or knowledgeable about? Do you really feel you can't participate in talkpages without infringing on this? ] (]) 01:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - I'd say {{tq|"racial issues broadly construed"}} is actually pretty broad given how much of history/geography is touched by it. I'd also say they do appear to have made an effort to improve, though I'd still like to see more. ] (]) 16:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


== Request to Fix Redirect Title: Camden stewart ==
Compiling numerous peer-reviewed sources and media reports, I quickly experienced why scholar ] wrote that English Misplaced Pages's coverage of Falun Gong and its propaganda and media outlets (like Shen Yun and ''The Epoch Times'') appeared to be "little more than mouthpieces for the FLG point of view" (2018. ''Falun Gong: Spiritual Warfare and Martyrdom'', p. 81. Cambridge University Press.). The reason why was pretty obvious: These articles have been (and are) absolutely crawling with single-purpose accounts whose core goal is clearly to make pro-FG edits whenever and wherever possible. Some of them have been camped out on these articles for around a decade. They're all too happy to brigade and lawyer away anyone who might want to introduce a source or claim that would not meet the approval of self-created narratives. I've witnessed exactly the sort of behavior Lewis describes in his assessment and the attempts at character assassination and similar I've seen also check out with the various accounts out there by scholars of being harassed and/or threatened when researching the topic.
{{atop|1=Looks like this is done. - ] <sub>]</sub> 18:39, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}}
Hi, I need help correcting the capitalisation of the redirect "Camden stewart" to "Camden Stewart" as the surname is improperly lowercase. I cannot make the change myself because redirects require admin intervention for title corrections. Could an admin please assist? Thank you! ] (]) 05:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)


:How many redirects are you making? I see a lot of activity today. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 05:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Absolutely nothing has been pleasant about any of this. On the up side, these articles have seen major improvements over the course of 2020 and many great editors have since gotten involved, making this sort of brigading and lawyering much more difficult to manage. So, while the SPAs are still now and then making attempts at reverting these articles to their previous states, the old norm appears to have been smashed and the SPAs seem to have lost the field to basic Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines like ] and ].
::Thanks for your response! I’m just setting up a few redirects to make it easier for people to find Camdenmusique's article, like ''Camden Stewart'' or ''Camden Music''. Let me know if anything needs adjusting, appreciate your help!" ] (]) 05:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:@]: I have moved the article to draftspace at ]. If you have a ] with Camden Bonsu-Stewart (which I suspect that you may since you are ] and you ] his professional headshot), you must declare it ]. You should also not republish the article until it has been reviewed by an experienced editor at ]. ] (]/]) 05:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::Thank you for your feedback! ] (]) 08:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Andra Febrian report ==
So imagine my surprise a couple days ago when, after signing on as I normally have since 2005, I checked my watchlist, and made a straightforward revert () only for me to receive a message that I had been blocked from editing for 24 hours by {{ping|Guerillero}}. As admin Guerillero—whose name I did not recognize—informed me, Guerillero had . Anyone on Guerillero's list was apparently forbidden from performing any reverts on this page (yes, that's right, ''0RR''), , and, . Guerillero did, however, notify me that he had , during which time I was no doubt being bombarded with the usual harassment from SPAs and missed it or I would have immediately appealed to avoid absurd situations like this one. As I had apparently not reverted anything on that article since July 2020 (or you'd have heard all about it from me at that time), it sure seems like there was never any reason for me to be on this strange list to begin with. I still have no clue why I would be included on this list—the article already has a very visible 1RR policy. Guerillero's block was soon lifted by {{ping|Bishonen}} and various other admins lended support for the removal ().
"Andra Febrian" is disrupting many edits, I have seen many deleted edits by this user, and I would like to report the user for causing many ]s. The edits unreasonably reverted by this user is very disruptive to me, as I only intend for useful contributions. The user has:
- caused many edit wars <br/>
- deleted citations along with deleting correct claims <br/>
- not been cooperative (wikipedia's ]) on many pages that good-] edits have occurred on <br/>
- not explained deletions of citations in a way that other users have been made upset. <br/>
I request that the user is warned.
] <!--Template:Undated--><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added 22:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC)</small>
:First: the notice at the top of the page clearly says to place new sections at the bottom of the page, which I have now done for you. Second: you need to provide ] for the edits you are complaining about. Third, you were supposed to notify Andra Febrian per the instructions at the top of the page. Another user has done so for you. - ] 00:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:@]: please sign your comments using <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>, which will add a timestamp. Additionally, I reverted your edits to ] and to ] because you are changing information in articles without citing ]. You must cite sources when you add or change information in articles. ] (]/]) 00:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::] just filed a new complaint at ANEW and made the exact same mistakes as they did here. I advised them to stop posting complaints on noticeboards until they can follow the instructions. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 07:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:::FWIW, I have a feeling that HiLux Duck is a sockpuppet of ], but I am holding back until they give themselves enough rope to hang. Same obsession with defining overall lengths for various car classifications and edit warring at length over them. <span style="background:#ff0000;font-family:Times New Roman;">]]</span> 00:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I'm always impressed when editors can recall editing habits of editors that were blocked years ago. I guess I lack the longterm memory to keep track of sockpuppet habits. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::{{ping|Liz}} MrDavr actually got under my skin at one point; otherwise I probably wouldn't have noticed. Thanks, <span style="background:#ff0000;font-family:Times New Roman;">]]</span> 02:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Looking into this {{duck}} (a HiLux ]?) because yeah, this is ''exactly'' the same editing pattern. Same username pattern as a number of MrDavr socks too (car names/variations thereof - ]). - ] <sub>]</sub> 09:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::@] - ] (]) 15:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Most likely yes, I knew that the his editing patterns matched an old blocked user but didn't remember the name. ] (]) 16:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::It's also interesting to note that HiLux duck's user page claims they've been on Misplaced Pages since 2019, and having compared edits more extensively I've seen enough and gone ahead and blocked per ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 20:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)


=== Mr.Choppers warning request ===
I fail to see how this in any way assists Misplaced Pages. In fact, stuff like this actively discourages the editors who we really need on these articles. Could someone please remove my name from this ridiculous and arbitrary list so I don't have to deal with this nonsense again? ] (]) 05:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
:: <small> This was (again) posted at the top instead of the bottom; it seems like it is not really a separate issue. ] (]) 01:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)</small>
: I can't comment as-to whether your block was justified, but Falun Gong is an extremely controversial topic visited by many SPAs and an admin-imposed 0RR is justified. 0RR for all editors, not just editors on some list you claim exists. ] (], ]) 05:10, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
User:Mr.Choppers has not followed the ] rules because: <br/>
::"List claim exists"? ]. The article is set to 1RR. ] (]) 05:13, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
'''-''' calling me a "nuisance" because of own ] supporting others in ] that have nothing to do with the user. ] ] <br/>
::: I apologize, I was mistaken. I thought 0RR applied to all editors at ], it does not. I think you need to appeal at ], though I will not stop you if you want to appeal here. ] (], ]) 05:19, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
'''-''' responded fairly aggressively to another user (me) without me being aggressive back or starting this edit war <br/>
:{{ping|Bloodofox}} You are going about this the wrong way. Discretionary sanctions exist for very good reasons. I have no idea why you were caught up in a 0RR restriction but the fact is that you were. Rather than starting a general discussion regarding your misfortune, you should ask somewhere quiet about how to appeal. The first step of any successful appeal is to work out what happened at the time. Perhaps, to an uninvolved administrator, it did appear there was excessive reverting, and they reasonably concluded that handing out half-a-dozen restrictions was desirable. Try to see it from their point of view (AGF: they are not mad, they are not trying to get you, they would have had a reason). After that, have low-key and polite discussion with the admin about what you would need to do for them to lift the restriction. Point out ''some'' of what you said above (fringe, SPAs). Then wait for their reply and politely engage with what they say. I, or others, can say how to proceed if dissatisfied after that but those two steps are very important. ] (]) 06:30, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
'''-''' note that he also called me a "sockpuppet of a banned user" without reliable clarification, also biased on that <br/>
:: to come here or go to AE. I figured I'd come by here first. ] (]) 06:41, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
'''-''' also note the user had not informed me and used aggression to support own claims. <br/>
* The unblock request seems a bit worrying? The request asked for an appeal to be copied to AN/AE and was denied and told to wait until the block was over? Yes, it’d probably have taken longer than 24 hours to reach a consensus to unblock anyway, but this seems effectively like unappealable blocks (minus the IAR unblock). As for the 0RR, is there a good reason for keeping it up? Why was it imposed originally? ] (]) 08:27, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
<br/>
**Only have time to skim but around time of 0RR ban seem fine. So '''support''' lifting that restriction. Also ArbCom should maybe create a reasonable quick process to undo short AE blocks. ] (]) 08:49, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
I would like to inform that this user has unnecessarily used aggression and claimed things not there. Kind regards, ] (]) 2:29, 6 January 2025 (GMT+12)
***The 0RR restriction should be lifted, I don't think it should have been set in the first place. I have edited that article from time to time but hadn't realized it had been imposed, if I had I would have objected. ] ] 09:55, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
:Missed this because it was at the top. Very unlikely to have merit and is moot now, given the block. - ] <sub>]</sub> 02:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''It's time to lift the 0RR restriction.''' Background: Guerillero discusses his 0RR sanction of six editors in from July 2020. Guerillero's post is , stating that he has placed "most everyone involved in the article under a 0RR sanction" in an attempt "to keep the article from becoming a mud fight". Perhaps unfortunately, nobody there took him up on his offer to answer questions about these sanctions. The six people are, I think, three from each side, per BF's description above of the sides. So, on Guerillero's part, it looks like an "0RR 'em all indefinitely and let God sort 'em out" approach in what seemed a desperate situation.


== Proposal to vacate ECR remedy of Armenia and Azerbaijan ==
:Speaking now only to the sanction of Bloodofox, Guerillero's 0RR sanction notice on BF's page on 27 July 2020 is rather short on information, the only explanation being "edit warring". BF had made one revert at ] on 27 July, one revert on 7 july, and one on 5 July, all with explanatory edit summaries. So, clearly the sanction was not for edit warring in the classic sense. Was BF supposed to have got consensus on talk before reverting to Binksternet ? If so (and if not so, how?), it seems quite draconian to give him an indefinite 0RR restriction for violating the somewhat notorious "consensus required" condition (a condition I myself would never set), especially without any warning or recommendation to self-revert. The "mud fight" issue and Guerillero's post in the ANI thread makes it more understandable; still, seen from BF's point of view, not really understandable at all. Apparently he either rode right over it, or subsequently forgot about it, because he violated it by a revert on 28 February and was promptly blocked for 24 hours by Guerillero, again without any previous request to self-revert. I lifted this block, although it came with the pomp of a "reminder to administrators" that I might "at the discretion of ArbCom" be desysopped if I did, since it's an AE block. (Guerillero has however made it clear he has no interest in taking that road.) ] &#124; ] 10:02, 3 March 2021 (UTC).
{{atop|1=Already closed. - ] <sub>]</sub> 01:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}}
*Firstly, the user is entitled to appeal any AE sanction here, and personaly, were I ever hit, that's exactly where I would do so as well. I also get irked by claims that individuals receiving short-sanctions should either be obliged to appeal while the block is on-running, or wait until until it's over - both are, to me, unacceptable limitations. Given the circumstances (that is, long after the restriction was imposed) and non-problematic nature, I feel an immediate 24hr block was unnecessary. I also don't feel this sanction (as vs the base 1RR in place on the article) is beneficial and also advise it being lifted. A good case could be made for the removal of all the 0RR on the page, but I don't know enough about the status of the other editors to make an evidenced call on that. ] (]) 14:00, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
There is a proposal to vacate the ECR remedy of ] at {{slink|Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)|Remove Armenia-Azerbaijan general community sanctions}}. ] (]/]) 00:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

* For over a month, what would happen on ] is some form of {{xt|Alice would make a controversial change, Bob would revert it, Clara would revert Bob back to Alice's version, Daniel would revert Clara, 24 hours will have passed so Alice reverts Daniel back to her version}} and the article would be full protected my myself or {{u|El_C}}. After a few go rounds of this and having to indef full protect the article, I placed the most common parties of this under a 0RR to break the back of this behavior. I was able to unprotect the article and it worked until 28 February 2021 when the pattern started up again. My feeling was that a 0RR would be better than a topic ban, because it would allow people to edit the article but stop the edit war. This may have been an over step on my part, but I did it to try to keep a contentious topic stable. As for my block, I have no intention of dragging Bishonen to arbcom over it. --] <sup>]</sup> 16:06, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
*:I would have no strong objections to lifting the 0RR on the non-SPAs on my list. --] <sup>]</sup> 16:17, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
*::I also think this would be a good idea, —]] – 11:52, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
*:::Sounds good to me ] (])

{{od}} Since I was pinged, a couple of notes. I don't think I noticed at the time that {{u|Guerillero}} converted my one-week full protection to an indefinite full protection, then downgraded that to ECP, accompanied by the aforementioned 0RR sanctions to select users. But I don't think it matters (my knowledge of any of that). I trust Guerillero's judgment, overall, in any case. Also noting that ] is probably one the AE topic areas I'm least familiar with (to the best of my knowledge, have never ] anything on that front, which says a lot). Finally, to ]'s point about ] — I tend to view it as the nuclear option (same with EBRD, except it having more radiation fallout, IMO). I think I've maybe added CR to pages once or twice (or three times max) during the past year, which, again, says a lot. ] 17:00, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

* Update: has been gracefully lifted by Guerillero (]), —]] – 16:42, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

== On abuse of administrators ==

Just to note here, that in the last 12 hours I got a few replies from two unrelated blocked users, all addressed to me personally, with both users suggesting whom I should have sex with (one repeatedly suggested my mother, and another one some gentleman whom I have never heard about). All these edits have been revision-deleted, so there is nothing more to do here, but when we are going to have the next discussion on admins who are doing whatever they want and get unlimited power and are only interested in this power, and that everybody wants to become admin but is deterred by RFA, please remember that what the most active admins experience is daily verbal abuse. And I still consider myself lucky that this was confined onwiki, and none of the users (yet) tried to contact me off-wiki with these suggestions. This happened to me in the past as well. Have a nice day.--] (]) 08:25, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
:Yes, I know. I come to think of the hostility that is every day shown towards teachers, policemen, guards, and other people entrusted with keeping some kind of order. Somehow teaching as a profession helps me put it into perspective. I will always be appreciated by many but hated and despised by a few both as a teacher and as an admin.--] (]) 08:33, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
::Some administrators who work in highly controversial areas of the encyclopedia are subjected to constant harassment and abuse. I try to stay away from the most controversial topics, but have still had my fair share of abuse and harassment. "Self hating Jew" comes up about as often as "Christians" declaring that I will burn in hell. The only thing that really bothers me are credible threats to murder my granddaughter, accompanied by photos of her scraped off of Facebook. ] ] 08:53, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
::: I agree that this on-wiki stuff is not really serious (I have got more serious threats by e-mail, and had to report them to the police, but not in the last few days), however, this certainly does not motivate me in any way. Again, there is nothing to really do about this. I am not going to resign my tools because of this kind of abuse.--] (]) 08:57, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
::::There's a proverb that I find some consolation in: "it is never too late to give up". We do this voluntarily, and as long as it feels worthwile we stay.--] (]) 09:10, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
:::::I spend a lot of my time trying to keep two sides apart, and retain neutrality, regarding Northern Ireland topics. I get called everything by both sides constantly. Water off a ducks back at this point. Unfortunate though that people think it's acceptable to do that sort of thing. ] ] 14:25, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
:Coincidentally, on ''Slate'' yesterday: '''' ] (]) 18:51, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
*We have multiple filters for blocking inappropriate edits; can we not block emails to other editors that also contain offensive words or phrases? ] (]) 09:59, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
::In your preferences on the User Profile tab, there's a check-box for "Allow emails from brand-new users". Filtering on offensive words could lead to the ]. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 11:36, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
I've chatted to GorillaWarfare about off-wiki harassment in the past, and they have advised me in a couple of cases where I have had abuse that the WMF are looking into it. Unfortunately, if somebody scrapes pictures of you off social media and dumps them on an attack site, there isn't really much they can do if it's not illegal. ] ] ] 13:14, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
*Sorry you had to deal with this, Ymblanter. I've thankfully only had rare "mid-level" issues, normally it's just the casual angst and insults for me. Beyond the Scunthorpe problem, people also use emails to me to raise other individuals' problematic edits, including duplicating some language used. ] (]) 13:25, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Sometimes I wonder if you all should receive some sort of stipend or other compensation for all the abuse and harassment you are subjected to on a regular basis. Given that this is a volunteer project and that adminship carries even greater responsibilities than simply editing, I cannot imagine how anyone would willingly put themselves through such hardship in addition to their existing career without seeing some form of recognition -- positive recognition -- beyond just a "keep up the good work chaps" from the folks who actually draw a salary.--''']'''-''<small>(])</small>'' 14:35, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, I got an "angry" message earlier today from an experienced user about how I needed to wait for consensus before acting on a normal ANI report. Only if it falls within DS would I be allowed to act singlehandedly, I was told in no uncertain terms. Attached with that message was an "overt threat" to either take me to ArbCom or —and this is new— they'd run their own ], somehow (?). I just gotta quote the comment in full: {{tq|Fuck your collapsing. Without ], you do need to wait for consensus. I will either start an ARBCOM case against you or file my own RFA to get my own adminship if you disagree. I will not reply to you or anything else on this thread until at least 2 other admins comment on this topic}} (). Anyway, yeah, I've been threatened with an RfAR enough times, but never an RfA! Don't think it would serve as a good mission statement for one's sought adminship, though. ] 14:52, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
:That would be a truly entertaining RFA, to be honest with you.--''']'''-''<small>(])</small>'' 14:58, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
:Yes I can't think that making lurid statements and threatening vexatious Arbitration requests is going to go over well at RfA.... ] <small>( ] · ] )</small> 15:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
:: I apologize, my point got lost in my shouting. I was trying to say that admins should generally wait for consensus in controversial cases, though counter-intuitively that isn't the case for the most contentious areas (DS), because the cost of inaction is higher there. ] (], ]) 18:13, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
:::Well, that's another editor that will always get an oppose from me at an RfA. ] (]) 20:25, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
::::'''Questions for the candidate'''
::::Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
:::::'''1.''' What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
::::::'''A:''' Gaining second-mover advantage over El_C. ]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 22:44, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
* UTRS seem to cater to a slightly different clientele who have an unhealthy fixation on racial identity and female genitalia - {{utrs|38724}}, {{utrs|40091}} - I fear they may lack skills in crafting a persuasive unblock argument. ] (]) 16:18, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
**Some top quality rebuttal there - it must have been a tough call to decline their requests with rhetorical skill at that level.... ] (]) 18:07, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
***Hey, no fair posting juicy stuff that we non-admins can't read! Don't you know we're only here for the smut? ] (]) 01:24, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I wish I had some advice or something more productive to say, but I don't. All I can say is that I know how you feel, and it's absolutely unacceptable what many editors have to go through for choosing to spend their limited free time providing a free source of knowledge. ]&nbsp;<small>]</small> 02:05, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

== Block of ] ==
{{atop|result=The block is endorsed. Since this was not an appeal by GeoSwan, but rather an administrator asking for feedback per the blocking policy there is no community ban of Geo Swan. For those interested in this issue, ] remains open at Commons. ] (]) 01:42, 4 March 2021 (UTC)}}
{{user|Geo Swan}} created ] (now deleted), apparently as a result of an off-wiki dispute they had with the subject of that article. {{U|HJ Mitchell}} deleted that and gave an only warning, with the note that he'd probably had blocked indefinitely if he'd been able to explain himself during the fall-out. Geo Swan continued editing today, without even acknowledging what had happened. You may see some of the background at ]. I don't necessarily want an indefinite block on Geo Swan, but I do want them to account for themselves for what HJ Mitchell called . ] (]) 15:13, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

*'''Assessment' and rehash''' Geo Swan is a well liked editor who has done a lot of work in BLP's. Sometimes, unfortunately, he does things he should not. <s>I'll try to link to last years debacle where he kept sealioning and bludgeoning and forum shopping</s> Geo Swan insisted on the inclusion <s>over</s> of content that had been removed about a non notable person who wished to not be endangered by having her name broadcast all over the internet. (Part's in my talk archives.) I would recommend a ] on BLP's indefinitely. If this were Geo Swan's first misstep, we would need to extend greater leeway. Unfortunately, Geo Swan has shown again a shocking lack of restraint or good judgment where BLP's are concerned, especially in a user for GS's tenure. (afkb) --<b>] ]</b> 15:24, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
:] --<b>] ]</b> 19:52, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
*It appears the article was started in the middle of a ], where there was a disagreement between these two parties. –]] 15:32, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
**], yes, thank you--I forgot to mention the business on Commons, in my rush to get to class. I appreciate it. I don't know if they took action over there, but I did post a note on their admin board last night. And let me take the opportunity to add that I asked Harry via email about why he blocked in the first place (cause I didn't see it initally), and we discussed the matter. Thanks, ] (]) 18:43, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
:::<small>{{reply|Drmies}} Re. Commons, well, as far as defending the project's reputation goes, they clearly considered the best way forward. Although that probably says more about Commons' priorities than anything else. ]] 18:52, 3 March 2021 (UTC)</small>
:As I write this, the article has been copied onto a site called wikialpha (What is that site? Does it host attack pages?). I can find a few sources about Dan Trotta , but I don't think it would survive an AfD. So I don't think it meets ], but I think HJ Mitchell can legitimately invoke ] and ] and delete it. If the subject of a BLP does not want an article about them, and there is not extensive coverage to write about them sensibly, do not create one.
:As for Geo Swan, I think they should come here and explain themselves, then we'll see what happens. ] ] ] 15:55, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
::They can't, they're blocked... ]] 16:03, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
* There's nothing obviously negative in the deleted version of ], but the Commons discussion does put it in a troubling light: creating a Misplaced Pages article about a ] who clearly doesn't want one, to make a point about who "owns" our coverage of living people, would be a bright-line violation of ] and the ]. This is a good block, that should stay in place at least until Geo Swan has explained himself. &ndash;&#8239;]&nbsp;<small>(])</small> 16:05, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
*'''Close thread.''' There is nothing to discuss here at this point. We cannot review the indef block of Geo Swan until they appeal it. And as long as they are blocked, there is no need for any further action against Geo Swan. Any review of the deletion belongs at ]. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 16:15, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
::I believe {{u|Drmies}} is just following the advice at ], {{tq|After placing a potentially controversial block, it is a good idea to make a note of the block at the administrators' incidents noticeboard for peer review.}} &ndash;&#8239;]&nbsp;<small>(])</small> 16:19, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
:::Thanks, I didn't notice the thread was started by the blocking admin. Still, I decline to review a block as long as we don't know whether the blocked user desires such a review. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 21:54, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
*GS indicated on Commons that they knew it would be a {{tq|dick move}} on their part if they created it, and yet they did, days later. I'd say this is a good block. Full quote from GS {{tq|If this image was in use, say in a brand new wikipedia article on Dan Trotta, we would almost certainly decline your request for a courtesy deletion, because it was in use. For about 30 seconds I considered starting a nice fair article on Dan Trotta, but I didn't do so because it might seem like a dickish move on my part. Geo Swan (talk) 19:12, 28 February 2021 (UTC)}}] 16:25, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
*I would be happy to change to a partial block for article space so they can discuss the matter here.16:26, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
*'''Leave thread open.''' I don't think Misplaced Pages should be used by its editors to harass people. That's just wrong on so many levels. There is much yet to discuss. --<b>] ]</b> 16:31, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
*<s>'''Unblock''' on the basis that they reply here only - Editing anywhere else would result in indef. If after a week no response then I guess reblock for x amount of weeks/months. Certainly agree with the above his actions have been unacceptable and he needs to do some talking. Sweeping it under the rug helps no one . –]<sup>]</sup> 16:37, 3 March 2021 (UTC)</s>
:*'''Endorse''' as per SN - At the time of writing the above I felt they should be given a chance to explain ''why'' they did what they did but I guess no amount of talking / sorries will ever help fix the damage and hurt they've caused. We're all here to write articles - Not use the website as a way to weponise people. It's unacceptable and shouldn't ever be tolerated period. –]<sup>]</sup> 18:04, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
*No one should even be thinking of unblocking GeoSwan for any reason. They have literally done the worst thing a Wikipedian can do—weaponize the project against a non-Wikipedian, who in another theatre would be termed a civilian. This is one of the worst offences on the books (second, I guess, to off-wiki harassment). This represents a fundamental loss of trust on GS's part, and our response needs to be proportionate to that. '''Support indef block'''; also support '''standard offer''', which should be the minimum on the table. As noted above, they knew perfectly well they shouldn't create the article—but they did. The project, to put it politely, needs to protect itself from that kind of dearth of judgment.{{pb}}It's bizarre people are talking about partial blocks, for behaviour with such obvious real-life and potentially legal implications. If GS wants to say anything here, he can do what every other blocked user who still has their talk page access: write there to be transposed here—as Drmies original block instructs. ]] 16:55, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
:{{yo|Serial Number 54129}} Oh, I'm fully cognizant of the legal ramifications. GS and I have gone a few rounds on BLP before. IMHO, they'll be fortunate if this does not wind up at Trust and Safety. My partial block suggestion was to allow them to respond here. Due to my past interaction, I cannot credibly advocate a CBAN, but your points are well taken. And I prefer to think of myself as "unique" rather than "bizarre". --<b>] ]</b> 17:14, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
*'''Excellent block''' done here. This honestly is quite possibly the worst thing you can do on Misplaced Pages to someone else. There's no call for it, none what so ever. I'm in the camp of giving people second chances, but this one...I don't know. There are so many ramifications that could come from something like this. ] (]) 17:46, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
*'''Endorse block''' That argument on Commons was ugly and unseemly. And then to retaliate by writing an article about someone who made it clear they didn't want the attention? That's way, way over the line. Repulsive behavior. ] ] 17:51, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

*'''Endorse block'''. This is bad on so many levels. If you're looking for policy violations to cite, ], ], ], ] all come to mind. My only question here is what the off-wiki aspect was. Are we talking about the spat on commons about deleting the image (which would be bad enough), or was there some additional IRL interaction (which would be far worse). -- ] ] 17:53, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
**I think it started on Commons, then slopped over to en.wikipedia without IRL interaction. HJ Mitchell warned Geo Swan: "Do not write Misplaced Pages articles about people with whom you are in dispute elsewhere (...)" which, I assume, Drmies interpreted or paraphrased as 'off-wiki' here. I might be wrong, and I don't think it will change the outcome of this thread either way. ---] ] 18:40, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
***{{U|Sluzzelin}}, I actually don't know if the online dispute was the one on Commons--{{U|Imissdisco}}'s comment (on their talk page), "GeoSwan created this page after an argument we had online", doesn't specify, but worse, Geo Swan didn't take that opportunity to explain. In fact, they didn't take '''any''' opportunity to explain, at all, and went and filed that huge report that would draw anyone's attention at AIV, which is where I found it. So, in addition to Harry's comment, , I would say that Geo Swan also abused his superior knowledge of the processes on Misplaced Pages, and the temperament and likely responses of the editors and admins who, like me, are inclined to look at a set of edits like Imissdisco's as just vandalism, essentially. Note Geo Swan didn't even post on Imissdisco's talk page: they just let the Recent changes patrollers and others handle the matter via templated warnings. And I fell for it too, with my block--but I made it a partial block to just stop the disruption of the article which wasn't obvious to me as an attack page or a negative bio. So that's even more incriminating: it's an abuse of writing skills ''and'' of process. Thanks, ] (]) 18:53, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
*'''Endorse block''' It's a willful violation of COI used to rebuke another individual. If they do in a reasonably neutral fashion, then they've not burnt their bridges irrevocably, but it does warrant the block. I have no complaints if someone wants to unblock under the sole condition of commenting here. ] (]) 18:05, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
*If they are unblocked a BLP topic ban needs to be considered in the light of this incident and last year's over getting the name of an individual connected to ] into Misplaced Pages, contrary to ].-- ] (]) 18:33, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
*Just thinking, this block seems to be connected to an isolated incident. A siteblock seems punitive, what's preventative about this action? It seems the user has moved on and isn't going to repeat this kind of behavior again. ]] (]) 19:44, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
::Please see ] Not an isolated incident. This linked ANI thread is but one. It references a thread on my talk. It is quite comprehensive in addressing the matter at hand. --<b>] ]</b> 19:56, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
*A professional entertainer is not a private individual, and I see nothing in the deleted article so scandalous as to constitute an attack page that would justify deletion at the subject's request except going through a BLP discussion. (I see Drmies is of the same opinion). As for the deletion, and protection. {{U|HJ Mitchell}}, you did the deletion and protection. Do you truly consider it an attack page? Or as unsourced negative information? I'm not commenting on any other aspects. ''']''' (]) 20:04, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
** A screenwriter nor director is really not a "public" figure even if they may be a well-documented name as these are behind-the-scenes roles. Some are, people like JJ Abrams or Vince Gilligan who frequently appear in front of fans and the camera, but there's no indication the person Geo Swan wrote up had similar public presence. We should present they are not a public figure unless that can be readily documented, and as such, BLP protections should be held to their utmost --] (]) 20:20, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
*** The issue here is not whether the article should have been deleted or not. We were dealing with a member of the general public here who knew nothing of our internal processes or policies, had a legitimate concern about their privacy, and was obviously not happy. Whether you're an admin or not, when you're interacting with somebody like that, you're acting as a representative of the project. Sometimes that takes the thick skin of a rhinoceros and the patience of an ox. If you don't possess those qualities, you shouldn't be in that role. It seems like Geo Swan did everything they could to deliberately make a delicate situation worse. They correctly identified an action which would be inadvisable, then they went ahead and performed that action. That's the core problem here, and that's what Geo needs to explain. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:58, 3 March 2021 (UTC) -- ] ] 23:00, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
**** To me this looks pretty obviously like a bad faith article creation (dubiously notable as well) in order to justify keeping the image. The situation seems to have been inflamed by Geo Swan's assertion that the user was an imposter of Trotta, (though I suppose that is highly unlikely, but possible) raising some similar requests on Commons from photos uploaded from the same photo group, ] ]. Strange hill to pick to die on. ] (]) 00:16, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
*'''Endorse block''', mainly beause this is the second time there's been an issue with this. In the George Floyd - related issue, GeoSwan's additions of a BLPNAME were revdeleted and they were advised not to take the issue to AN or ANI because it was a high-traffic page . What did they do? . Here, they created a page for a barely-notable person (non-notable IMO) just because they'd had a disagreement with them on the Commons page. There, GeoSwan said themselves that it would be a dickish move to create the article . Then, guess what? They created it. If GeoSwan is to be unblocked, I would expect it to be with a complete BLP topic ban. ] 21:13, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' The only interaction I have had with Geo Swan is at ] where he chastised me for removing ] as a source in a BLP article. ] (]) 21:21, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
**I'm sorry, but how is that relevant? ] (]) 00:08, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
*** This thread has had other comments surrounding BLP editing by Geo Swan, so I thought this interaction was relevant to bring up here. Jihad Watch is an islamophobic conspiracy website and a totally unreliable source for a BLP article, and nobody should be criticised for removing claims sourced to it. ] (]) 00:28, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
****That is correct. ] (]) 00:37, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
*Yeesh. Another example, though somewhat less problematic on its own: It looks like after ] was started by a subject of a photo (not Trotta), Geo Swan responded by (where there's less of a notability threshold) thus removing the possibility of a courtesy deletion.<br/>I get that it can be frustrating for article subjects to say "please don't use that properly licensed photo of me, taken in a public place where I knew my photo was being taken, in a country where consent isn't required ... because I don't like it", and that in many cases there's often nothing really to be done other than suggest they release a better one (preferably with more guidance to help them to do so than in the threads I've been reading). But in those cases where it's not in use, or when a better image can be used, let's remember to err on the side of decency? Creating an article (or even a Wikidata item) in response to a request for courtesy deletion is a weird kind of antagonism (intended or not). &mdash; <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 00:18, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
*Hey, if one of y'all knows anything about Commons or has power there, I'm not happy with that's happening there. Taivo blocked Imissdisco and is unwilling to reconsider, and I'm wondering if the Commons move on Geo Swan's part, which started this all, isn't a good reason for them over there to do something. Thanks, ] (]) 00:37, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
:* Standard Operating Procedure for Commons, unfortunately. There are some good people there, but a significant number simply don't live in the real world when it comes to things like concern for BLP subjects. ] 00:42, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
*'''Endorse block''' per those above. Hopefully this will be a wake-up call for Geo Swan, whose comments prior to creating the attack page indicate they know what is wrong with the way they acted. It would be unfortunate if we were to lose a valuable contributor because they were unwilling to admit wrongdoing or make some changes in behaviour. I recommend in future writing your comment without posting it, and coming back to it when in a different mood whenever things begin to get heated—we always know deep down that what we are doing is not good before we press "Publish changes", but sometimes our emotions get the better of us. — ] (''']''') 01:11, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
{{abot}} {{abot}}
===GS block review epilogue===
{{atop|This has gone pearshaped. Please start a new thread at ANI referencing this one and this extension if you wish to seek a CBAN. --<b>] ]</b> 22:33, 5 March 2021 (UTC)}}
- Hi sorry I know I'm not supposed to wade in but I just wanted to say thank you to those who helped me with this. I'm definitely not happy with some of the language I used, but I was desperate and felt completely powerless. I made some mistakes, but all I wanted was to garner a bit of control over what I felt was a retaliatory action. Sorry to have made more work for you all, I can't believe this started because of a stupid photo. This is supremely embarrassing. I appreciate everyone's kindness and patience with this.

Am I being paranoid by asking about possible retaliation by Geo towards me for my part in this? Probably an impossible question to answer. It's just this has me a bit spooked. I know he's posted about me on wikialpha, so it just has me wondering. Anyway. Should be great fodder for my next pilot ;) ] (]) 17:01, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

:It should be included in the record here that a user named Geo Swan recreated the article at wiki alpha, which I won’t link to. This is to make it clear in any attempt at an unblock request that (presumably, could be a false flag) GS has continued this behavior off wiki. ] (]) 19:46, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
::I gave Imissdisco some I'm-not-a-lawyer info. Hopefully that will get worked out. Just in case it was GS, (Don't think it's their style. Could be a Joe Job.) I called upon them to get it taken down. Hoping for the best. To my knowledge, GS has not yet returned. --<b>] ]</b>
:::It will be interesting to see if GeoSwan abused his position at Wikialpha by uploading that article. But seeing as how he is—ooh, get this!—, I think that's unlikely. I also think, needless to say, that since GS crossed the Rubicon, as it were, by weaponizing an external website in pursuit of an on-wiki feud, a C-ban discussion would be wholly appropriate. ]] 16:08, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
::{{u|Mr Ernie}}, Interesting. I found that, and blindly assumed wikialpha was a site like ] that scraped articles before they got deleted, or just a straight Misplaced Pages mirror that happened to grab a snapshot at the right time. ] ] ] 17:11, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
:::(long, protracted sigh. followed by an obscenity) ( another sigh) (clears throat) It was my impression in our dispute last year that GS has a poor understanding of the potential legal ramifications of their "boldness" regarding BLP. I wish them well in their editing away from this project. But there comes a time when "boldness" becomes ''recklessness''. I hope they do not find this out the hard way. And I feel for anyone harmed by their recklessness. Gad! Here's a thought. Were they trying to uncover the name of Chauvin's wife for a page at Wikialpha? --<b>] ]</b> 17:48, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
:::WA actively encourages their users to browse the articles listed for deletion here on Misplaced Pages, and even have a Save Article feature to preserve and publish them there. I'd also note that on GS' discussion page on WA, he was asked to delete an article in December 2020 on WA, at the request of the subject, and on that very same day, edited the WP article that mentions that subject, ensuring the links still worked, and added archive links as well. It doesn't appear he originally added the content here on WP, but is it a coincidence that he suddenly took an interest here, making sure the links worked, and adding archive links.]] 18:06, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
::::There is no question that it is the same editor in both places. From the time stamps, he actually created the article at WA, and then copied it here to WP. I agree that this kind of harassment on and off wiki merits a C-ban discussion. ] (]) 19:58, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

:If you check the wikialpha history, it lists Geo Swan as the creator and editor of the page. It's him/her. They edited it just yesterday morning, in fact. I guess this could be an imposter but that seems strange ] (]) 18:28, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

::This has gone far afield of what I originally intended-- a ''post hoc'' update. The original thread was to confirm the block. It is now moving in the unintended direction of a CBAN. Please start a new thread at ANI, referencing this discussion and extension If a CBAN is really something you want. --<b>] ]</b> 22:33, 5 March 2021 (UTC)


== Cannot draftify page ==
{{atop|1=Done. - ] <sub>]</sub> 18:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}}
I tried to draftify ] but a draft exists with the same name (and same content before I blanked it). Could an admin delete the draft so I can draftify the article? {{User:TheTechie/pp}} <span style="font-family:monospace; font-weight: bold"> <span style="color:ForestGreen;font-size:15px"> ]</span> (<span style="color:#324c80">she/they</span> {{pipe}} ]) </span> 00:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:{{done}} {{ping|TheTechie}} ] has been deleted. — ] <sup>]</sup> 01:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}} {{abot}}


== Remove PCR flag ==
== Request topic ban for ] ==
{{atop|1=Flag run down. - ] <sub>]</sub> 18:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}}

Can an admin remove my Pending changes reviewer flag as I have not used it recently. Thanks <span style="font-family:monospace;font-weight:bold">]:&lt;]&gt;</span> 06:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
] joined in September 2020 and has been POV-pushing (In ] sock investigation ] said the user is "certainly" POV-pushing, "but that should be addressed in other fora"). Edits are supporting his religious beliefs (See ] and ] for background), which is fine, but edits have been far from adhering to policy. I recommended reviewing policy on ] in September and October.
:Done. ] (]) 06:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I've brought policies to his attention and repeatedly asked him to review NPOV (See ], ], ], and many edit summaries). His responses have been incoherent and kind of belligerent. On he asked the teahouse for advise: "I have noticed that my edits are being reverted by a editor without giving me a valid reason for the same." and that the editor (me) was trying to "supress my my point".

He typically edits every day or two. I have reverted most of his edits. I think he honestly believes he is in the right and being persecuted (an honest review of histories and talk pages will reveal he is not). It has not really bothered me because of the infrequent editing, but I think the edit warring and months of inability to improve deserves a topic ban for maybe a month. Editing pages unrelated to his beliefs could improve the quality of his contributions. ] ☼ - ] 16:06, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

== ] backlog ==
{{atop
| status =
| result =
}}



There is a backlog of 25+ requests at ]. Thank you. — ] ] 18:06, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
:<span class="nowrap">]&nbsp;'''Done'''</span><!--template:done--> by Woody and Ritchie. For the record, the statement "There is a backlog at RFPP" is pretty much a tautology (that might be a good thing, because a few hours to see if things continue is not a bad thing). Cheers, ] (] / ]) 01:56, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
{{abot}} {{abot}}


== ] infobox feud == == "The Testifier" report ==
{{Moved discussion to|Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#"The Testifier" report| ] (]/]) 18:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}}
{{atop|Closed by Wugapodes with a detailed and thoughtful explanation ] ] 08:52, 4 March 2021 (UTC)}}

Could I ask an uninvolved admin to close the RFC ]. It's been 30 days, and I've had to full-protect the article for 24 hours (see above thread) after editors are edit-warring over the infobox, and I was pinged to the discussion, so I'd rather somebody else did it. ] ] ] 19:31, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
:{{done}} <span style="white-space: nowrap;">— ]]​</span> 01:17, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Problem with creating user talk page ==
== Clear bias from the ] and ] ==
{{atop {{atop
| result = CU blocked as sock by {{noping|Spicy}}. ] (]/]) 01:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
| status =
| result = This is going nowhere and is likely to end up in a ] for the OP if they keep this up. Closing before that happens. ] (]) 01:09, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
'''Addendum''' Due to continued hostilities, <s>Cullen 328</s> Connorguy99 blocked for 72. It kept going, so I removed TPA. There is a parallel thread at ]. --<b>] ]</b> 02:02, 4 March 2021 (UTC):
}} }}


Hello, I'd like to get some help to create the talk page of user {{user|BFDIisNOTnotable}} to warn them against ] with {{tlsp|uw-ewsoft}} or a similar notice. Trying to create the page gives a notice that "bfdi" is in the title blacklist. I wonder how the user was allowed to create the account today, given that from what I can see, the blacklist should also affect usernames...? I obviously can't notify the user of this AN post on their talk page. ]&nbsp;(]) 14:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC)


:I have created the talk page. No idea why 'BFDI' is on the blacklist, and if so, why a user name by that was allowed - that's something for cleverer heads than mine... ]] 14:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

::I think it stands for "Battle for Dream Island". See ]. ] (]) 14:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
The fact that I have been singled out and blocked as a result of edit warring, which I admit to, by Praxidicae when others have exceeded well over three revert limits and escaped even a warning, is disgusting. The following users all made far more that three reverts during the edit warring and haven't even been warned; ] (9 edits), ] (7 edits) and ] (6 edits). WikiFlame50 actually enlisted RM-Taylor to join in the war on their behalf, and then began removing information that I had posted from RM-Taylor's talk page. ] (]) 00:54, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
:::Ah, I wondered if it was linked to ]. ]] 14:32, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:Yes, I am completely biased against editors who revert other people 32 times on articles about shitty soap operas. Block me. ] 00:57, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
::::As to the technical reason that the username could be created, the reason is that accounts are not actually created on this wiki. They are created globally. As a result, us blacklisting anything can't prevent account creation. ] ] 18:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:PS, hot take bro. I'm not an admin. That evil admin {{u|Izno}} blocked you. You're lucky it wasn't indefinite but since you insist on digging this hole, I'd like to propose an indefinite block given this user has edit warred across a variety of articles and 32. 32 reverts. It's insanely disruptive and this editor doesn't appear to get it. ] 00:59, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
:::::This particular account was ]. ] (]) 01:04, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
: Readers will be interested in ] and ] for background to this complaint. --] (]) 01:00, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

:: You can try to demean people all you like by calling it a "shitty soap opera", but others would demean how upset you are over a handful of edits. Now that a rather foul-mouthed confession has been offered, I want to know what is going to be done about this bias. ] (]) 01:02, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
:: Added ] to this complaint. ] (]) 01:03, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

* @Connorguy99: you appear to have been edit warring on ] for several days. Think yourself lucky you only have a 48 hour partial block from it. --] (]) 01:04, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
* I lost count of the reverts you made - you're lucky not to be fully blocked. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 01:06, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
* Yeah, I am not entirely convinced it's a good idea for someone who, by my quick count, has reverted '''47''' times on ] and ] in the last few hours, to be opening a discussion on an admin noticeboard about a 48 hour partial block being unfair, but *shrug* ] 01:07, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
* Almost an hour of blocking for every revert... – ] (] • ]) 01:08, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
::: I firmly believe no action should be taken against these users for “bias” as they only fulfilled responsibility in fixing a dire situation. ] (]) 01:09, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

] you are nearly at double digits if you consider your reverts from both pages, and ] you are in the 20s! And WikiFlame50 encouraged a friend to help him spam revert, so I consider their friend's reverts as their burden too - bringing them close to 30 reverts. Yet only I am warned? ] (]) 01:15, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
:Yes, you should have been reported for edit warring a long time ago,and received a lengthy block. Bluster isn't a valid defense. The discussion is closed for your own good. Drop it. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 01:17, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
{{abot}} {{abot}}


== Administrators' newsletter – January 2025 ==
== Automatic (Blind) reversion of sockpuppet edits ==
{{atop|result = producing more heat than light. --]] 13:48, 5 March 2021 (UTC)}}
I noticed several edits on my watchlist that were within minutes and reversions of a user who it turned out is a sockpuppet. When I queried, I was told that the edits can be reverted on sight, even if it reintroduces bad edits. I was pointed to the banning policy which says it can be reverted on sight. However, the "exceptions" state, "This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor (changes that are obviously helpful, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand), but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert.
When reverting edits, care should be taken not to reinstate material that may be in violation of such core policies as neutrality, verifiability, and biographies of living persons."
]
So which is it, revert on sight no matter what, or be smart about it?
Here's the huge list of reversions, See this one where it reintroduces a BLP violation: ] <sup>]</sup> 03:05, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
:The editor involved ] is a sockpuppet of the prolific puppetmaster ], whose SPI archive can be found , with its extensive list of socks. Per ], this editor is ''de facto'' banned from Misplaced Pages, which means that '''''every single edit they made should never have been made.''''' On the theory that it's more likely that puppetmasters '''''might''''' stop socking if we didn't continually reward them by allowing their edits to stand, I frequently revert as many edits made by prolific sockmasters as I can. If asked about it, my standard response is that any editor in good standing can restore anything I've reverted if they think the edit is worthwhile, and by doing so taking personal responsibility for the edit, without the least objection from me. This is allowed per ]:
::'''"Edits by the editor or on their behalf may be reverted without question (exceptions), and any pages where the blocked/banned editor is both the page's creator and the only substantial contributor may be speedily deleted under CSD#G5."'''.
:I explained this to Sir Joseph on my talk page, but they decided to come here anyway. ] (]) 03:20, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
:::If one of the edits I reverted restored a BLP violation, and Sir Joseph noticed it, the proper response on their part would have been to notify me in one of the three messages they posted to my talk page, and I would have corrected the problem immediately. Instead, their battlegroundy response was to file an AN report. ] (]) 03:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
::::The onus is on you to not reintroduce a BLP, which is why you shouldn't blindly mass revert hundreds of edits. I don't have a battleground response, I'm just asking if the exception policy doesn't apply and we should, as you say, be allowed to revert on sight. ] <sup>]</sup> 03:26, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
:::::No, the onus is on the puppetmaster not to edit here in the first place. The onus on '''''you''''' is if you see I've made a bad edit, to either inform me of it so I can correct it, or correct it yourself and them inform me of it. What it does not call for is blowing up a trivial situation iinto an AN report. ] (]) 03:29, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
:::::::Sorry, but posting a "query" on AN instead of working with me to correct errors is indeed a battlegroundy response. You posted two comments on my talk page, got two responses, never mentioned any specific problems which needed to be corrected, and then your third comment was that you had posted here. That's hardly working to fi a problem before coming to the noticeboards, that's trying to get someone into trouble. ] (]) 03:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
::::::Not according to Wiki policy, see the "exceptions" section of the policy you quote. ] <sup>]</sup> 03:32, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
:::::::So Wikipolicy says you shouldn't try to fix a problem with another editor before coming to the noticeboards? ] (]) 03:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
::::::::I'm not going to get into a pissing match with you. That's why I came to AN to ask the question. ] <sup>]</sup> 03:35, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
:::::::::There wouldn't be a "pissing match" if you had simply come to my page and said "Hey, I see where your reverting the edits of a sock, but did you know that in these edit X, Y and Z, you restored a BLP, or restored a typo or whatever." But you didn't do that, did you? '''''You never gave me the chance to fix any problems you saw, you just wanted to make trouble for me.''''' ] (]) 03:38, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
::::::::::Final comment to you, hopefully. That's exactly the point. The onus, as per policy, is not for someone to go through your mass reversions to see if all are OK. The onus is on you to see if they're OK before reverting. ] <sup>]</sup> 03:40, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
:::::::::::But when you '''''did''''' find problems, you didn't tell '''''me''''' what they were so I could fix them, which would have been the '''''collegial''''' thing to do. Instead, you saved them up for your AN report in order to bolster your attempt to get me in trouble. This entire report is a sizzling piece of ] behavior, for which Sir Joseph should be trouted, at least. ] (]) 03:51, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
::I pasted the "exceptions" part in my post.
::You quote the sentence but don't quote the exceptions part.
::Here it is again:
::This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor (changes that are obviously helpful, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand), but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert. When reverting edits, care should be taken not to reinstate material that may be in violation of such core policies as neutrality, verifiability, and biographies of living persons.
::Your reversions reintroduced typos, vandals, and BLP and other false statements. ] <sup>]</sup> 03:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
*I mean, it's just a difference in priorities. Revert it if that's your thing. Take edits as they are if that's your thing. If someone reverts a sock and the revert introduces an error, fix it. A lot of time being wasted on a sock here it seems. ] and all that. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">— ]]​</span> 03:49, 4 March 2021 (UTC)


] from the past month (December 2024).
Generally in favor of mass reversion of edits by banned users, but should also try to look for BLP vios being restored. If you miss some say sorry and correct it and move on. And yes, tell the person they missed it on such and such edit. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 04:09, 4 March 2021 (UTC)</small>
:Best revert every edit....don't give the editor a sense that a portion of their edits will stand because of sheer volume. Make it clear to them that there is no point editing here because of the community sanctions and that every edit will not stand so don't try.<span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>-] 04:16, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
::If their version stands eventually, even if it's reverted and subsequently restored, they get the sense that they did something successful. We must decide which is more important: correctly identifying Sara Netanyahu as Bibi's wife and not his cow, or discouraging sockpuppetry. ] (]) 06:32, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
:::The views of the sockpuppet are not important, that's part of the "I" from ]. What's important is the time and efforts of productive editors. Dealing with sockpuppets can be tiresome and long work (Beyond My Ken was dealing with over 100 affected articles), and we do not want policies and practices that add to this burden. Agree with nableezy, if something is missed correct it and move on. ] (]) 07:14, 4 March 2021 (UTC)


<div style="display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap">
If a sockpuppet is making good edits, the best thing to do for the project is to talk to them and try to convince them to come in from the cold. The endless game of ] is a waste of time for everyone. ]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 07:20, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
<div style="flex: 1 0 20em">
:Apart from ordinary vandalism and incompetence and the occasional PoV SPA, I would say that the vast majority of editors who get blocked or banned make quality edits to Misplaced Pages. The sanctions that are placed on them are due to '''''behavioral''''' problems, not -- for the most part -- because of bad edits. Any editor who has been indef blocked or banned can ask for clemency and a return to the fold, and they will (usually) be given a fair hearing by the community -- indeed we have the ] as part of our normal processes -- '''''but the impetus to do so must come from them'''''. We cannot be in the position of begging people to return after misbehaving badly enough to be chucked out, doing so would make a total mockery of the idea that sanctions act to '''''protect''''' the encyclopedia from damage. Let a puppet master have a real change of heart, and decide that it's more important to them to contribute to the project '''''legitimately''''' then it is to continue to play at sockpuppetry -- and I suspect that it's like an online game to many of them -- and make their case to the community. Until they do, and the community decides to give them another chance, they remain beyond the pale and are not deserving of our leniency, especially when, like יניב הורון, they come back again and again and again and again. ] (]) 07:39, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
::And if Sara's article says that she is Bibi's wife, that's a win at יניב הורון's game. It encourages him to continue next time, and he may succeed at getting more edits ultimately being kept. ] (]) 08:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
:::{{u|Sir Joseph}}, will you please explain why you did not discuss the problem with ] with ] before bringing the matter to this noticeboard? Wouldn't that have been the collaborative thing to do? ] ] 08:43, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
::::I brought the matter to ask the question, not necessarily about one edit, of which there were a few that were false. ] <sup>]</sup> 13:26, 4 March 2021 (UTC)


] '''Administrator changes'''
{{od}} Sorry, a bit in-transit right now, so writing somewhat in haste, but what is up with this IP vandal above () commenting on this conversation (twice)? Am I the only one who picked up on that? ] 10:12, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
:] ]
*When a sock has made a large number of edits it seems to me unpractical to check every edit on a case-by-case basis, as well as having the effect of punishing the victims of long-term abuse. I think BMK's mass reversion is acceptable, though less optimal than checking for BLP violations if they have the time. — ] (''']''') 11:32, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
:] {{hlist|class=inline
* When someone cares so little about the project that they have used at least 55 different socks, we don't want them "in from the cold". We want them to bugger off and stay gone. I would still look quickly at their edits before reverting them, but with little empathy. The best way to deal with edits that are actually good is to take responsibility for them by reverting twice. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 12:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
|]
|]
}}
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}


] '''CheckUser changes'''
Another fire-and-forget comment. I'm not saying Sir Joseph is easy to get along with, just using my last interaction with him as an example (]), but this is a totally legitimate matter to query admins about on the admin board. They did not mention BMK in their OP. It's just a general query. So, I don't understand the vehemence against with which they are told to resolve it with BMK, somehow. What is there to resolve between the two of them right now? They had a conversation on BMK's talk page (]), but Sir Joseph wanted further input on how to correctly approach this sock and socks, in general. End of story. Also, Levivich, this notorious sock —which in this particular iteration was fuckin' ]'d— is probably too far gone to save, certainly in the usual way. But who knows. Maybe one day...? Seems unlikely, though. ] 14:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
:] {{hlist|class=inline
:BMK wasn't mentioned by name, but Sir Joseph directly linked to BMK's contributions as the edits in question. Those are essentially the same thing. ] (]) 14:40, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
|]
:<small>Is "this notorious sock" now part of Levivich's full title? "Dangit Levivich, This Notorious Sock, 5th Baron Sockington" <sup><small>]</small></sup> <sub style="margin-left:-12ex"><small>a ] franchise</small></sub> (]) 14:44, 4 March 2021 (UTC)</small>
|]
::<small>Still here, so I'll follow up quickly.</small> So what? Sir Joseph isn't asking for action or even an admonishment against BMK. They can query a general question that pertains to their dispute. There isn't some sort of invisible DR forcefield preventing it from being a legit query. Again, this is a non-issue. ] 14:47, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
|]
:::Nah. If you just want to ask about policy, you post here without Sir Joseph's final two sentences. When you include those final two sentences, it's not just an innocent query anymore. (C'mon, El C, asking admins to look at a {{tq|huge list of reversions}} is more than just seeking a policy clarification.) ] (]) 14:56, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
|]
::::], that is not a connection I draw. I, for one, don't see how that automatically translates into a request to warn or act against BMK. Whose approach here was right, as far as I can tell. Certainly, edits from such notorious socks are to be reverted on-sight. If there are occasional casualties (even serious BLP ones, like here), that's just the cost of this business. Yes, it's good to maybe peek to see that all is well, with this or that page subject to such mass reversion, but depending on the volume, that may not be practical. I really don't know if there's much more to this than that. ''//Out the door.'' ] 15:11, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
|]
:::::Correct, I'm not bringing this because of a person, I'm bringing this query because of a policy and the exception to that policy to see what the best way to deal with it is. ] <sup>]</sup> 17:30, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
}}
::::::{{u|El_C}} You know I have great respect for you, but I think you're missing the forest for the trees here. Sir Joseph came to my talk page about this issue, but '''''never''''' mentioned any '''''specific''''' problem, instead saving that for his "policy query" here. The link he posted here changed the entire nature of the report from an inquiry about policy into a report about another editor's behavior, and the fact that he didn't mention me by name in the test of the report is not relevant. ] (]) 19:38, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
:] ]
:::::::] thanks, and it's fine that we agree to disagree, but as an uninvolved admin, I don't consider this to be a lapse on Sir Joseph's part (and, again, noting that whenever such lapses are exhibited on his part, I'm not one to shy away from pointing these out). ] 20:02, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
:] ]


</div>
:I too revert all (known) sock edits on sight, and I work on the ] principle when it comes to reverting these edits - "if in doubt, shoot first then ask questions afterward. I would sooner accept a few casualties through accidents rather losing the entire base and its personnel through carelessness" And per Zero0000 - sometimes revert the revert '''if''' it's actually a good edit, but these are few and far between. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 14:49, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
<div style="flex: 1 0 20em">
]


] '''Oversight changes'''
:When I happen on this kind of blanket reversion of socks, and see that some of the reversions actually made the article worse, I undo them with edit summaries such as "restoring last version by X" (where X is not the sock, this is only possible, when the sock reverted a bad edit done immediately before their edit) or I write a descriptive edit summary such as "fixing typo", "restoring referenced content" or whatever, but I try to neither mention the sock (whose edit I'm actually reinstating) nor the blanket-reverter (whose edit I'm actually undoing). I just did this with five of the ca. 130 sock-reversions talked about here. It's takes a bit more time (and I didn't check every single edit), but it's the only proper way I can think of performing this trade-off between doing what's right for the article in particular and doing what's right for the encyclopedia in general. ---] ] 15:22, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
:] {{hlist|class=inline
::^^This is what I do, or would do, the few times I've run into it. Rgrds. --] (]) 16:21, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
|]
*We see this discussion a few times a year and it's always the same arguments. Yes, policy says that you can blind revert everything if you so choose, but a skilled editor *should* look at each edit individually and if reverting the edit makes the encyclopedia ''worse'' (ie: introduces factual inaccuracies or BLP violations), then really it should just be left alone. We aren't slaves to the revert tool nor are we more virtuous if we cut our noses off to spite our faces, all in the name of fighting sock puppets. We can and should use our judgement. If you revert an edit an it introduces a BLP violation or other issue, you own that mistake because you choose to introduce it into the article. ] - ] 17:04, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
|]
*:Thank you, that is what I am saying, but even more so because policy actually doesn't say you can blind revert. The exceptions make it clear that you need to make sure those exceptions don't apply. If they don't, then go ahead and revert, but you shouldn't just pull up the contributions page and revert all. ] <sup>]</sup> 17:29, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
|]
*::And that's why you saw a specific error I made, but never brought it to '''''my''''' attention, despite having initiated a discussion on my talk page, but instead put it in your pocket in order to use it against me in a AN report disguised as a policy query. ] (]) 19:38, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
|]
*::::And, BTW, these two edits and make it quite clear that I was not "blind reverting". I saw a problem that I had made and I fixed it. You apparently want me pilloried for being human and missing some other mistakes I made, but instead of '''''helping''''' me, you decided instead to throw stones. ] (]) 21:12, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
|]
*:::{{u:DennisBrown}} Yes, I "own" the error, but when another editor sees the error and doessn't tell me, I have no opportunity to correct it. Or, if they fix it and don't tell me about it, I can't thank them for it -- which I would have done. The question in this instance is not whether I made an error or not -- I did -- but exactly how that error was dealt with by another editor. In this case, it was used as a cudgel. ] (]) 19:45, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
}}
*:::::I would agree that taking here seems a bit unnecessary, and that any problem with an editor (particularly an established editor) should be taken to their talk page first. ie: Use the path of least drama first. ] - ] 22:21, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
:] ]
::There are multiple separate questions that need to be asked here, and I will do so with a brief explanation:
:*Question 1) Should a person, in the act of reverting a sock puppet, make at least a cursory check to see if their reverting of that sock puppet would actually create more problems then leaving the edit?
::*Answer 1) Yes, that would be best and ideal.
:*Question 2) If someone comes across a place where the editor in question #1 didn't check closely enough, and ended up reverting where they shouldn't have, what should they do?
::*Answer 2) Fix it themselves. If you see something that needs fixing, the lowest effort and least disruptive way to handle it is just fix it.
:*Question 3) What should be done with the editor that reverted where they should have?
::*Answer 3) Absolutely nothing. If you already fixed the problem yourself, then there's nothing left to do. If you'd like, maybe a pleasantly worded note would be optional, but that should be the end of it; even if they don't respond to your note in a way you would like, the most important thing is ''there's nothing else to do except fix the error''.
::If we focused more on improving Misplaced Pages text and fixing problems when we encounter them, and less on playing the "punishment game", Misplaced Pages only gets better. --]] 17:31, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
:::That ideal solution gives sockpuppets enormous room to jam Misplaced Pages by eating up serious editors' time. If, rather than mass revert, one were obliged to scrupulously examine the merits of each particular edit (dozens), committed wikipedians who have other things to do would be sucked into a timesink, with the sockpuppet chuckling. Fuck'em. Revert everything, and whatever is left over to be fixed, will eventually be fixed. Zero tolerance.] (]) 18:35, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
::::If you don't want to make Misplaced Pages better, no one is forcing you to do so. You aren't being paid, no one really needs you here. If you aren't here to improve things, at the very least, just stay out of the way of people that are trying to do so. --]] 18:43, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
:::::Since there is no way one can get from what I wrote to what you inferred, I suggest you take a course in elementary logic or do some remedial reading. ] (]) 20:52, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
:::::Reverting sock puppets of banned/blocked editors ''is'' making Misplaced Pages better. If it's not, the person shouldn't be blocked/banned. That said, I more or less agree with what you (Jayron) wrote above. I don't see that you are calling for people to be "obliged to scrupulously examine..." but just saying that it would be ideal to make sure you're not harming an article by reverting, but that there's no penalty if you don't. That sounds right to me, but caught between doing nothing and mass reverting, I'd prefer to see erring on the side of the latter. &mdash; <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 19:04, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
::::: (edit conflict) I didn't read what Nishidani wrote as not wanting to make Misplaced Pages better, just different priorities. On the one hand, many editors and policy see not allowing sockpuppets to edit here, and discouraging them from doing so, as very important in order to make Misplaced Pages better, on the other hand, it's fair to think about how one's editing time, effort and energy are best allocated in order make Misplaced Pages better. ---] ] 19:07, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
:::::: I would wish that there were no implied criticism by Administrator's or others towards those following agreed process in directly reverting sockpuppets. ] (]) 19:20, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
:::::::(in case I'm meant among 'others') I didn't mean to imply that. I'm just fuzzier on the issue, particularly when it comes to things like the BLP violation mentioned in the original post. My first reaction to this thread was to go and fix some of the stuff. I really didn't mean to imply criticism toward those following proceess. The process just isn't as clear to me as it obviously is to others. ---] ] 19:35, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
::::::::Policy itself is a little fuzzy because policy is designed to mirror actual practice, and there isn't a single mindset when it comes to reverting socks. What I spoke of earlier is a compromise position: If you're going to revert all the edits, you need to make sure you aren't doing damage in the process, because many sockpuppets are actually making worthwhile edits, so not all of them will need to be reverted, and in some cases, you might accidentally violate policy by reverting if you introduce BLP violations that the sock was fixing. There is no "good" answer, so again, it's all about judgement and avoiding being focused purely on punishing the sock. ] - ] 22:25, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
:::::::::It's good to be reminded that Misplaced Pages's policy and guidelines are supposed to be '''''descriptive''''' and not '''''prescriptive''''', and what follows from that is that they should be updated with some frequency to match what editors actually do. Too often there's a lot of resistance to adjusting them to new conditions, and guidelines especially are often approached as Holy Writ.{{pb}}BTW, ], it's nice to see you around again, you've been missed. ] (]) 00:46, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
::::::::::From Dennis Brown above "many sockpuppets are actually making worthwhile edits". And that is the point of some banned editors. Make good edits that get reverted so they can boast about it on other sites and laugh at the "twisted knickers" we all get into, me as well. ], ], ] 01:09, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
*::::::::::Response to all above: I don't believe I ever said we shouldn't be reverting the edits of sock puppets. We should. What I said was, and let me make this abundantly clear, that if someone messes up and reverts an edit that re-introduces a problem into an article, the proper response is to ''just fix it'' and then to ''do nothing else''. In other words, don't report people to ANI for reverting sockpuppets. As in, this thread should never have been started. Like, you're all LITERALLY lambasting me for pre-agreeing with you 100%. Like, I already clearly stated the things your arguing against me for. I'm not sure why you are doing it. Please find someone who says something you disagree with before starting an argument. --]] 13:15, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
*Ken is correct. ] (]) 17:20, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
*The policy is clear on this. Anyone is authorized to revert ban evasion. No one is required to do so. Try not to re-insert policy violations. Really simple. If someone accidentally reinstates a policy violation, you can just re-revert. Maybe let them know so they can keep an eye out. You don't run straight to the dramaboards pretending like the policy is ambiguous or contradictory. You don't post diffs of an editor making a mistake, and imply they're not "being smart", and then when they defend themselves imply they're trying to have a "pissing match" and claim that you're simply asking a question. Holy crap, what a toxic thread. ] <sup>]</sup> 01:47, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
*:The policy is also clear that it has an "exceptions" section which people seem to ignore. And the fact that several people here, admins included, disagree with you, it's not correct to say the policy isn't ambiguous.
*:I also never implied anyone wasn't being smart.
*:I asked if people can blindly revert without checking, or be smart (as in the adverb) about the reversions. Perhaps you should read El_c comments because if someone is making this toxic, it's not me. ] <sup>]</sup> 02:05, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
:::The policy does not have an "exceptions" section, you're lying.
:::The policy says to use "care" when reverting, which you've equated to "being smart".
:::You're highlighting a good faith mistake, implying that the editor did not "take care", and thus was not "being smart". I will correct myself, because the allegations were unfair. This thread isn't toxic, your OP was, and your subsequent responses were. Shame on you. ] <sup>]</sup> 03:32, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
::::Don't call me a liar, which is a PA.
::::"Edits by the editor or on their behalf may be reverted without question (exceptions), and any pages where the blocked/banned editor is both the page's creator and the only substantial contributor may be speedily deleted under CSD#G5."
::::Click on "exceptions" for exceptions.
::::I could write 1+1=2 and you'd complain so feel free to have the last word. ] <sup>]</sup> 03:57, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
::::I also posted on AN and not ANI because I wasn't bringing any person or drama. I was querying about the policy. You need to make drama, but that's on you. ] <sup>]</sup> 03:59, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
:::::Drama is caused by people doing the opposite of ]. Encouraging socks only encourages them and they never stop. That is corrosive to the community. ] (]) 04:31, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
* I only skim-read the above discussion, but my basic philosophy is to look at the edits in question and only revert (or delete in the case of G5 pages) if they do not improve the encyclopedia. In my view, reverting an edit that improves the encyclopedia does not conform to the philosophy in ], as they can then complain, with justification, that "evil abuez admins are stopping me from improving wiki" and get people on their side. By ignoring the edit, but blocking them for sockpuppetry anyway, they get less ammunition to fire back at us. See ]. ] ] ] 12:50, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
::And I endorse what Jayron32 and Swarm have said - if somebody's revert makes the encyclopedia worse, revert it back using an edit summary that explains why ''in the context of the content''. ] ] ] 13:22, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
*I agree with those supporting Ken - revert socks per DENY, even if the edits are good. Anything else encourages them to continue socking. If they want to edit constructively then they need to so from their original named account, having sought an unblock. ]] 12:53, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
{{abot}}


</div>
== 2020 China-India skirmishes ==
</div>


] '''Guideline and policy news'''
{{userlinks|208.104.49.104}}
* Following ], ] was adopted as a ].
* A ] is open to discuss whether admins should be advised to warn users rather than issue no-warning blocks to those who have posted promotional content outside of article space.
] '''Technical news'''
* The Nuke feature also now ] to the userpage of the user whose pages were deleted, and to the pages which were not selected for deletion, after page deletions are queued. This enables easier follow-up admin-actions.


] '''Arbitration'''
This IP is persisting with ]y posts at ]. I would also appreciate if admins can start monitoring this page since the conflict is heating up, starting today. -- ] (]) 11:00, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
* Following the ], the following editors have been elected to the Arbitration Committee: {{noping|CaptainEek}}, {{noping|Daniel}}, {{noping|Elli}}, {{noping|KrakatoaKatie}}, {{noping|Liz}}, {{noping|Primefac}}, {{noping|ScottishFinnishRadish}}, {{noping|Theleekycauldron}}, {{noping|Worm That Turned}}.


] '''Miscellaneous'''
==Controversial moves and parallel drafts==
* A ] is happening in January 2025 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles and redirects in the ]. ]
{{archive top|Awfully drafty in here. Black Kite gives good advice in the body, I suggest reading it. ] - ] 17:36, 5 March 2021 (UTC)}}
Not that I like having to come back here again, but I have no choice, I {{ping|Starzoner}} many times but he doesn't seem to mind. I don't understand why he insists on creating parallel drafts instead of just extending existing ones. I will cite some examples below. He also didn't care for . The worst part is that that the merger of the history has already been rejected twice () and still insists on continuing to work on his draft. I will cite some examples of parallel drafts that the user creates:
* He created ] knowing that ] already exists, a draft created months ago by {{ping|Rusted AutoParts}}.
* Also created ] knowing that ] already exists, a draft that I created months ago.
* Created ] knowing that ] was created first for {{ping|User:Some Dude From North Carolina}} ( how Some Dude created the article at 19:15, 9 February 2021 but then he was redirected to a draft that Starzoner did not created but moved from another created at 19:05, 17 December 2020.)


----
I find it very unfair that I continue to do this kind of thing despite thousands of warnings from me and other users. ] (]) 14:04, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
{{center|{{flatlist|
* ]
* ]
* ]
}}}}
<!--
-->{{center|1=<small>Sent by ] (]) 15:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)</small>}}
<!-- Message sent by User:DreamRimmer@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_newsletter/Subscribe&oldid=1266956718 -->


== user:Uwappa: refusal to engage with WP:BRD process, unfounded allegation of ] violation, unfounded vandalism allegation ==
{{archive top|result=I have indefinitely blocked Uwappa per ]. Whilst the legal threat pointed out by multiple editors may be very vague, it certainly is designed to have a chilling effect, and Uwappa has confirmed this with addition to the section. Quite apart from that, we have persistent edit-warring, meritless claims of vandalism against others, and there is a limit to which an editor who thinks all of this is a big joke can be allowed to waste everybody else's time. They can explain themselves in an unblock request if they so desire. ] 22:57, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}}
repost from archive:


The content disagreement behind this report is trivial in the overall scope of Misplaced Pages (although the articles affected are subject to ]), but the editor behaviour is not. My reason to bring this case to ANI is that ] rejects some basic principles of the project: ] means that a bold edit may be reverted to the '']'' and goes on to say {{tq|don't restore your bold edit, don't ] to this part of the page, don't engage in ], and don't start any of the larger ] processes. Talk to that one person until the two of you have reached an agreement.}} Despite having been reminded about BRD after their first immediate counter-revert, they responded to the reversion to the ''sqa'' with another counter-revert and, after another editor reinstated the ''sqa'', counter-reverted again. At no stage did they attempt to engage in BRD discussion. Both I and the other editor attempted to engage with them at their talk page: Uwappa characterises my explanation as a personal attack. On another page, Uwappa reverted an edit where I suppressed the questioned <s>material</s> template, declaring it "vandalism" in the edit summary. I recognise the rubric at BRD that says {{tq|BRD is optional, but complying with ''']''' and ''']''' is mandatory}} but Uwappa has done neither.
:Redux of previous threads and attempting to run me off from this project. Anyone who sees this thread should see his talk page where people expressed frustration, including mine. Also, regarding the Pet Sematary, he should have realized he broke the terms of use and attribution policy when he redirected my draft and copy pasted all the content there. I've been the victim of multiple insane threads where he's trying to get me blocked for no reason other what?


I consider my escalating this to ANI to be a failure of negotiating skill on my part but, while Uwappa refuses to engage, I am left with no choice. Allowing a few days for logic to intervene has not been fruitful. With great reluctance, because Uwappa has made valuable contributions, I have to ask that they be blocked until they acknowledge and commit to respect the principles that underlie BRD, ] and ].
:simple: competition to his articles. Now that he found the need to come here again, I'll stop editing filmography topic.


'''Diffs:''' ''(all timestamps UTC. NB that I am in England => UTC+00:00, Uwappa is in Australia => UTC+10:00 ) ''
:Ping {{U|Black Kite}}, {{U|BD2412}} as who had responded to other threads.
* : Uwappa replaces {{tl|Body roundness index}} with a substantially changed new version
* : JMF (me) reverts to the previous version, with edit summary "sorry but this version is not ready for release. I will explain at talk page."
* : JMF opens ] at template talk page (and leaves notifications at the talk pages of the articles that invoke the template).
* : Uwappa responds minimally at template talk page. {{midsize|] ]}}
* : Uwappa counter-reverts to their new version of the template, no edit summary.
* JMF reverts the counter reversion with edit summary "see WP:BRD: when BRD is invoked, the status quo ante must persist until consensus is reached"
* : Uwappa counter-reverts the template again, no edit summary.
* : at ], JMF advises Uwappa of the BRD convention.
* : {{u|Zefr}} contributes to BRD debate.
* : At Uwappa's talk page, JMF notifies Uwappa of edit-warring using {{tl|uw-editwar}} with edit summary "I advise strongly that you self-revert immediately, otherwise I shall have no choice but to escalate."
* At ], JMF comments out invocation of the template, with edit summary "use of template suspended pending dispute resolution . See talk page."
** (a series of reverts and counter reverts follow, in which Uwappa alleges vandalism by JMF. Neither party breaks 3RR.)
* At their talk page, Uwappa rejects the request to self-revert and invites escalation. Edit summary: "go for it".


* ] reverts the counter-reversion of the template to re-establish ''sqa''
:Also, I wonder if the recently adopted Code of Conduct could result in sanctions against Bruno.] (]) 14:18, 4 March 2021 (UTC)


* Uwappa reinstates their counter-reversion of the template.
::I will leave and that I archived, where you can see how Starzoner immediately after my claim and sent to delete these two articles.] (]) 14:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
* Uwappa contributes to the BRD discussion only to say "See also ] for escalation in progress.".
* JMF reverts to ''sqa'' again, with edit summary " rv to consensus version, pending BRD discussion. That is now also a WP:3RR violation." {{midsize|My 3RR challenge was not valid as reversion was outside the 24-hour window.}}
* At Uwappa's talk page, JMF advises Uwappa to take a break from editing.
* At their talk page, Uwappa alleges ] violation. I will leave it to others to decide whether the allegation has merit.


---
I'm willing to move on and stop fighting here on Misplaced Pages, and even move on from editing here on Misplaced Pages, if and only if means bringing peace here to the site. Frankly, I'm tired of being dragged here for the purpose of wanting to be "first", despite being the reportee in 2 prior drafts.
* At Uwappa's talk page, JMF suggests that we let the status quo stand and we all walk away without escalating to ANI.
:I am really tired of being stalked daily in my edits.
* Uwappa replies to refuse de-escalation.
:I am tired of being watched every day/
:I am tired of being threatened every time.
:I am tired of being reported here every day.
:I am tired of being the victim of unnecessary threads everyday.


As of 11:48 (UTC) on 30/12, the live version of the template is the one that has consensus support. --] (]) 11:59, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
I have done is slightly change my approach everytime, but this is not helping the case.


:Well, Uwappa hasn't edited on the project in 12 hours so it's pretty sage to assume they haven't seen this complaint yet. I'd like to hear their response and whether or not they are willing to collaborate before passing any judgment. Very through presentation of the dispute, easy to follow, so thank you for that. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 20:04, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
I may just move on from Misplaced Pages because of the acts above. ] (]) 14:30, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
::Yes, that is why I felt it important to make clear that our time zones are very widely spaced, which makes collaboration difficult in the best of circumstances. When they do see it, I would expect they will take some time offline to polish their response before posting it{{snd}} and consequently it is likely to be as long again before I respond. ] (]) 20:35, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
* Blaming other people isn't a good idea here. You were warned about this previously, and I deleted something like 3,000 empty drafts that you had in your user space for no reason whatsoever except to "pre-date" other people's drafts. So here it is
:* Do not create any more draft pages that duplicate others.
:* Do not create speculative drafts with no content (or useless content, such as "Upcoming film"). Only create a draft when there is encyclopedic, sourced content to put in it.
:* Do not redirect other people's draft pages to your own.
:* Do not do anything that attempts to take credit for creating a page when you were not the original creator.
* I hope this is clear. Thanks, ] 18:52, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
* I would like to comment firstly that ] is generally a net benefit to the project, and I hope they stay, and secondly that it is permissible and often even laudable to get a jump on preparing content that will ultimately end up constituting needed articles. Of course, it is pointless to create blank or no-content pages for the purpose of being the "creator" of what eventually becomes an article, but this is an uncommonly silly dispute to be concerned about. ] ] 21:27, 4 March 2021 (UTC)


Reposted above from archive, see ]
Was this thing seriously brought to ANI? I've had issues with Bruno about their draft creations being particularly lazy and in general just find them a bit greedy about boxing others out in creating drafts as well but it's not an issue that requires ANI unless you and Starzoner started having massive edit wars or got particularly nasty towards one another. ] 22:28, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
:It seriously was, and ]. I think there's some merit to the OP's concern, but they unfortunately have BLUDGEONed every conversation and not let anyone else actually get a word in edgewise to discuss the issue. ] (]) 13:14, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}


JMF suggested to add the following bit from my talk page:
== SethRuebens unblocked ==


::::You escaped sanction because there were too many more egregious cases in the pipeline and it is a first offence. ANI does not adjudicate on content disputes, only on behaviour and compliance with fundamental principles. The evidence against you was really unarguable; I have seen quite a few cases and I know how they play out: if it had reached a conclusion, you would have been blocked until you acknowledged that you had gotten carried away in the heat of the moment, that you understand and accept ], ], ] and ], and that from now on you commit to respecting them. I strongly advise that you take the message anyway. --] (]) 12:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Following a successful appeal to the Arbitration Committee, {{u|SethRuebens}} is unblocked subject to a (1) one-account restriction, (2) a ban from directly editing ], and (3) a requirement to ]. For the Arbitration Committee, ''']''' 19:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
:::::Mate, sorry I was late for the escalation party. End of the year was a madhouse here, both in business and with social activities.
: Discuss this at: '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard|SethRuebens unblocked}}'''<!-- ] (]) 19:35, 4 March 2021 (UTC) --><!--Template:hes-->
:::::I was very happy you did escalate and will be happy to reply now that I have spare time available for WP. My business legal department is pretty exited about it, like a kid in a candy store, can't wait to put its teeth in WP rules and regulations.
:::::Would you like me to repost your escalation? ] (]) 12:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::I strongly advise that you read ] before you write another line. ] (]) 15:27, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
{{od}}
I am so sorry I was late to join this party. End of the year was a bit too hectic, did not leave much spare time for fun activities like WP.


] What would you like me to do now? ] (]) 04:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
== Orland Park Place ==
:It was not clear on your talk page, and it's even less clear here since you did not repost your response to JMF's last line there. You do explicitly retract the apparent legal threat that was made? - ] <sub>]</sub> 08:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::I did not make a legal threat. ] (]) 08:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::@]: your reference to your "business legal team" could certainly be construed as a veiled one, at the very least. You are being asked to clarify by either confirming or retracting this. -- ] (]) 08:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::{{tqq|My business legal department is pretty exited about it, like a kid in a candy store, can't wait to put its teeth in WP rules and regulations.}} is either a legal threat or indistinguishable from one. - ] <sub>]</sub> 09:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::No it is not a legal threat. It is about <b>"WP rules and regulations"</b>, not about law.
::::* To who would this be a threat?
::::* Which law?
::::* In which country?
::::] (]) 09:57, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Why would a legal department be involved? — ] (]) 12:02, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::It certainly looks like a legal threat. ] (]) 14:24, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::@]. Why would a legal department be involved? — ] (]) 17:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Wow, I am glad you asked.
::::::* to have a bit of fun, take a break from the normal, pretty serious work. It will be like kids in a candy store.
::::::* It will be fun for me too. I can't wait to get going with this once the pandemonium calms down.
::::::* The accusation "user:Uwappa: refusal to engage" is utterly wrong.
::::::] (]) 22:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::I'm not at all experienced in the legal world, but I don't think any professional legal team that you're paying money towards would ever be excited to save you from a website "like kids in a candy store". ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 22:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Why would a legal department be excited about you being reported on Misplaced Pages unless you're planning to use them in some way? ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 17:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::I suspect, from context, that Uwappa was trying to suggest they would have assistance of a professional team in interrogating rules and regulations. But "I have the spend to wikilawyer this more than you can" isn't really all that much better than an outright legal threat. Between that and what surprises me is that they're not blocked yet frankly. ] (]) 17:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)


Could someone please un-salt the title ]? {{user|Pokemonprime}} has created a draft ] and would like to move it into article space. <span style="color:green">'''Ten Pound Hammer'''</span> • <sup>(])</sup> 18:35, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
:], done. ]<span style="background-color:white; color:#808080;">&amp;</span>] 19:07, 5 March 2021 (UTC)


:and just to throw some more fuel on the bushfire, you have just accused me twice more of vandalism., . --] (]) 12:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] ==


* I would say that for Uwappa to read this AN filing, reply to it (including something which could ''well'' be taken as a legal threat), and ''then'' immediately go back and the template for the fifth time (with an edit-summary of "Revert vandalism again", no less) shows a serious lack of self-awareness of the situation. ] 12:46, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Some pretty nasty comments in the there, maybe they should be striked out? ] (]) 16:13, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
*:Putting aside the possible legal threat, if Uwappa's business legal department is involved it seems likely to be a cause of ] or at least a ] which really should have been declared which doesn't seem to have happened. This also means Uwappa shouldn't be editing the article directly. ] (]) 14:06, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:Maybe they just were. ] (]) 16:22, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
*::It’s hard to see a paid or COI element to the behaviour at {{tl|Body roundness index}}. — ] (]) 14:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::It is fairly weird, but I can't see any reason a business legal department would have any interest unless the editor's activity relates to their business activity. ] (]) 14:27, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::I expect it’s just empty talk to get an upper hand in the dispute. — ] (]) 14:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::: Indeed. It is night where Uwappa is now, but my inclination is to see what reaction there is when they restart editing. If it is another revert or a lack of discussion, a block (or at least a prtial block) is indicated. ] 15:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::], how do you know where I am? Are you spying on me, disclosing personal information?
*::::::* Anybody in the room who ]?
*::::::* Reverted vandalism 3rd time in 24 hours. Anybody curious about what the vandalism is?
*::::::* Anybody in the room that wonders why I had to do the repost? Isn't that odd in combination with "user:Uwappa: refusal to engage with WP:BRD process"? Did anybody read ]?
*::::::* Did anybody read ] and ]?
*::::::* Did anybody spot any incompleteness in the accusations?
*::::::* Anybody interested in my to answers to the accusations?
*::::::] (]) 16:59, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::* JMF above said you were in Australia and I had no reason to disbelieve him. If you aren't, it's irrelevant really, I was just pointing out that you may not edit for a few hours. No-one here is required to answer your questions, but I will; the point was that you invoked something that could be a legal threat {{tq|My business legal department is pretty exited about it ... can't wait to put its teeth in WP rules and regulations.}} You say that isn't a legal threat, well fine, but you haven't explained what it ''was''. Meanwhile, you're ''still'' edit-warring on the template and claiming that other's edits are vandalism, which they clearly aren't, which is why you can no longer edit it. Have I missed anything? ] 17:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::* Again, that was either a legal threat or actions indistinguishable from a legal threat in an attempt to cause a ]. When called on it you have continually ] instead of straight-up saying "no, that was not a legal threat and I am not involving any legal actions in this". So to make it very clear: you need to clearly state that or be blocked per ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 20:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC)


And just to add to the excitement, Uwappa has just repeated their allegation of vandalism against me and reverted to their preferred version of the template for the ''sixth'' time. (Their edit note adds ''3rd time in 24 hours'': are they boasting of a 3RR vio? {{u|Zefr}} undid their fourth attempt, I undid their fifth attempt, but possibly they misread the sequence.) --] (]) 17:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
==Brewers in Nottinghamshire==
* Yes, I noticed. I have pblocked them indefinitely from the template, and reverted that edit myself so that no-one else is required to violate 3RR. ] 17:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
I've just spent the whole day on a project to help round out the information on brewing in North Nottinghamshire. Someone came along and deleted two profiles already and then marked another for speedy deletion. They say it's promotional. It is not. It was written neutrally. I am not the brewer or in any way associated with the brewer. There was a request to add more information about local brewers - the list page has a huge number of brewers on it without profiles. I feel like I've completely wasted my time. I also feel that the criteria is completely inconsistent because how can you write about any company if it is deemed promotional. And you will note that I followed the stame structure as other brewers who have not been deleted. My understanding was that if there was a problem - eg promotional content - that this would be flagged up on the talk page and discussed. I have no idea how to recover the content that has been deleted. I have no idea how to ask for help. It just feels disrespectful and frankly like bullying the way people behave on here. Supposedly you want more women editors. I'm just not seeing this in the behaviour of some of the people on here. The profiles are Springhead Fine Ales and Welbeck Abbey Brewery that have been already deleted. ] (]) 16:34, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
:{{u|SandrinaHatman}}, Hi, I'm sorry to hear about this. I have a keen interest in brewery and pubs and have written or improved several articles on the subject including the bulk of ] and ]. I had a quick look for sources for the ] and see coverage in the , and , which should be enough to write a small encyclopedic stub. If the breweries are covered in Amberley-published books, that will help. I'm a bit busy over the weekend, but I'll see what I can do about recreating these articles and get back to you. ] ] ] 17:14, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
::{{ping|Ritchie333}} aren't you rather crossing the line of your interaction ban with Praxidicae by getting involved with this ? ] (]) 17:39, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
:::So what do we do? We just put up with people deleting things willy nilly Nick? Can you please tell me how you're going to help? I spent hours going through press to find the information and properly cited it all. Thank you to Ritchie for the suggestion but I wanted to contribute profiles of small to mid sized brewers because there are 2000 of them and only a handful have profiles. I'm effectively being prevented from doing that. And the Fremlins article was fab Ritchie and very interesting. I just improved Goachers a bit and will be uploading another photo that my friend took of The Rifle today.] (]) 18:31, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
::::{{re|SandrinaHatman}} What has this to do with Ritchie333's interaction ban, which I was asking Ritchie about ? ] (]) 19:12, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
:::::{{ping|Nick}} Prax is the person who nominated the three articles for deletion.— ]&nbsp;(]) 22:13, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
::::::{{replyto|Diannaa|SandrinaHatman}} I think the point is if there's a problem with Praxidicae's editing or admining, then anyone without an iban is free to discuss these problems, including I assume SandrinaHatman, and try to help in any way allowed by our policies and guideliens. Anyone with an iban with Praxidicae isn't free to do so, and should stay out of it not least because it leads to these asides which risk distracting from the potential actual issues. That particular comment of Nick was meant to solely focus on the appropriateness of Ritchie333 participating in this discussion and getting involved with articles that were deleted by Praxidicae. ] (]) 12:16, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
* I'm not convinced those were G11 speedies, to be honest. The prose was written pretty neutrally and lists of beers that a brewery sells are not unusual in a brewery article. Whether they're ''notable'' or not is quite another matter, but that's not what they were deleted for. ] 22:31, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
*: Yeah, was wondering about that - we've got I think pretty much every Scottish whisky distillery and would have lists of their bottlings, so are breweries really that much different. ] (]) 22:41, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
*::There's a lot of ambiguity to what counts as "unambiguous promotion" in practice. As soon as there's a hint of promotion, many patrollers will tag for speedy deletion and many admins will oblige, even if it could have been saved by toning it down and providing better sources. The defence is to use unimpeachable sources, avoid puffery, and not write anything that could be perceived as soliciting sales. ]<span style="background-color:white; color:#808080;">&amp;</span>] 00:37, 9 March 2021 (UTC)


:* Ha ha ha, this is beyond ridiculous. {{Blockquote|text=An editor must not perform {{strong|more}} than three reverts on a single page whether involving the same or different material—within a {{strong|24-hour period}}.|source=]}}.
== Article to deletion ==
:* Suggestion: Add the following calculator to ]:
* ] - hoax article to deletion. ] (]) 17:47, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
:Article deleted as both of the refs were leading to 404 pages that did not exist. Also I find a bit of irony of a hoax page being created by someone with the name "FakerGuy" ] (]) 19:10, 6 March 2021 (UTC)


{{calculator|id=edits|type=number|steps=1|size=3|default=3|min=0}}
== Disruptive editing and brazen incivility at ] ==
{{calculator-hideifzero|formula=ifless(edits,3)|starthidden=1|is less than three.}}
{{calculator-hideifzero|formula=ifequal(edits,3)|is equal to three.}}
{{calculator-hideifzero|formula=ifgreater(edits,3)|starthidden=1|is more than three.}}


:* ] (]) 22:30, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
I am reporting two editors, ] and ]. The former for disruption and the latter for abusive behaviour. A discussion was had back in in regards to the main cast of the show. This discussion was closed after Scenario started ] the discussion after many other editors disagreed with them. The discussion was revisited today and Scenario returned to the discussion and proceeded to resume this behaviour. I as it was clear the same road was about to be walked but Scenario reverted it twice a clear act of defiance to continue their filibuster and indicates they will resort to edit warring. I asked they restore the archive but so far it’s been ignored. Anubhab decide to invite themselves to the discussion simply to attack the site and myself and {{Ping|Favre1fan93}}. , , . While I was filing this report they proceeded to go after {{Ping|Facu-el Millo}} . ] 18:10, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
::* From ]; {{tq|Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring}}. Which this quite obviously does, especially as you've reverted ''twice'' whilst this report was ongoing. Frankly, you're quite fortunate it was only a partial block. ] 22:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:Anubhab has added another . . ] 18:16, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
:As was said by users such as {{Ping|Favre1fan93}} also back in January. It was decided to wait off any cast discussions until after the final episode aired which was last friday. Rusted also did not give other users the opportunity to respond in the new patiently waited to start discussion, which is why I reverted. Reporting me for disruptive behavior seems childish in this case. ] (]) 18:16, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
::When a discussion is archived it is closed. It does not get reverted because you wish to keep talking. If you feel so strongly you open a new thread even though it would be inappropriate. You do not edit war it back open. ] 18:18, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
:::A discussion should include more people. You decided to archive it without giving other people the chance to answer. Seems undemocratic. ] (]) 18:22, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
::::You were making the same arguments and doing the same frustrating practices as the prior discussion. You kept pointing to arguments that myself and other editors already addressed in the prior discussion. It’s clear where it was going so I closed it. It’s not undemocratic. The point remains you don’t undo an archival. It’s disruptive. ] 18:26, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
:::::No dude, I was making different arguments. Archiving something you don't give other people the chance to respond to seems disruptive as well. Also it was decided to wait off the final episode. ] (]) 18:30, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
::::::Diffeeent arguments for the same point. Each argument you made was disproven or debunked, so it came back to the same as before, where you’re refusing to get the point. Another editor even said you were beating a dead horse so it’s clearly a sentiment held by others. ] 18:36, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
:::::::No that's just plain wrong. It's a fact that noteable actors get main billing even if they are not main characters. And also it was decided to wait till last friday for the final episode so that we would have all the information. ] (]) 18:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
:::::::You’re now carrying the discussion over here, more evidence of filibustering and bludgeoning. The issue at hand is the disruptive editing and your removal of the archival, not whether actors in a show are main or not. ] 18:46, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
:::::::::No I'm just telling you why I reverted it. You love throwing those out. And my removal of the archival was due to you not giving other people to respond because you think you are right and can just go around and archive everything. ] (]) 18:49, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
{{hat|1=Collapsing off-topic discussion. ] (]) 22:01, 6 March 2021 (UTC)}}
Ore gudmarani bokachoda rusted....r kto chudir bhai giri krbi sala kutta choda? Khankir cheler mto garpeyaji kore jachhis tkhn theke....fot banchod fot. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 18:20, 6 March 2021 (UTC)</span> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:”Ore gudmarani bokachoda rusted .... how many chudi bhai giri karbi sala kutta choda? Ever since he was mediocre like a prostitute's son ....” the translate came out a bit rough but they’re evidently calling me mediocre and my mother a whore. ] 18:32, 6 March 2021 (UTC)


:To admins, please ] Uwappa from further work on the calculator template for the body roundness index and waist-to-height ratio, and from further editing and talk page input on those articles. Uwappa has done admirable extensive work, but the simple calculator is finished and sufficient as it is. Uwappa has created voluminous ]/] talk page discussions for articles with under 50 watchers and few talk page discussants; few editors would read through those long posts, and few are engaged.
==Rusted Autoparts== This guy is being disruptive and thinks only that he is right and report people who are against him. ] (]) 18:52, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
:In recent edits on templates, Uwappa reverts changes to the basic template as "vandalism". No, what we're saying is "leave it alone, take a rest, and come back in a few years when more clinical research is completed." ] (]) 18:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:Johned 40 minutes ago and the only edit is to come here and criticize me, this is clearly someone’s sock puppet. ] 18:53, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
{{ab}}
*This was closed, but...Uwappa's reply to their block was . Suggest revoking TPA. {{ping|Black Kite}} - ] <sub>]</sub> 06:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


== An inappropriate template being added to many pages ==
==Rusted Autoparts== Did you know it's okay to have a thought, but not speak it out loud? I'm thinking things about you right now that I'm much too polite to say. Also, I joined Misplaced Pages because of WandaVision and came across this discussion. Surprised to see that some people are so small-minded.
*{{userlinks|Oct13}}
:I have blocked Anubhab030119 for two weeks for personal attacks and harassment. ] ] 19:12, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
::{{u|Nicky Fury}}, you are hereby warned to refrain from personal attacks and harassment. ] ] 19:15, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
This was my honest opinion. We do still live in a free country with rights is it not? To clarify this: "Freedom of speech, also called free speech, means the free and public expression of opinions without censorship, interference and restraint." This is a ground rule of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 19:27, 6 March 2021 (UTC)</span> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:{{u|Nicky Fury}}, no, you are wrong. This is not a public venue for free speech. It is a private website for the purpose of building and maintaining an encyclopedia. You can exercise your free speech rights elsewhere. ] ] 19:36, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
:::Blocked, obvious sock of someone who somehow thinks there is free speech on Misplaced Pages. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 19:33, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
::::The amusing thing is they originally got the quote correct, then specifically edited it to remove "by the government" from the end of the quote. Thereby proving the point. ] ] 19:35, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
{{hab}}


A user is adding the "mortal sin" template to a large number of articles where it doesn't belong . I've reverted 3 of them that were added to the articles I have watchlisted. Could someone who knows how to do massive reverts take care of the others? Thanks. ] (]) 11:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
* {{CUnote}} I've blocked Scenarioschrijver20 for 2 weeks per ]. ] (]) 22:56, 6 March 2021 (UTC)


:Discussion at ]. ] (]) 12:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
== User:Nick and arbitrary and unreasonable block of editing BLP ==
:I've reverted the addition of the template. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 12:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
*{{user5|Jabbi}}
:The template as been deleted per ]. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 12:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)


A look through this editor's talk page shows that there is a wider issue with their editing about religion. Regarding this specific issue they have done something quite similar before (see ]) along with a number of articles they've written moved to draftspace and that have been nominated for deletion. Their contibution history also shows a significant portion of edits having been reverted. Before suggesting any action I'm keen to hear from {{u|Oct13}} on this. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 12:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Recently I created a page about a Belarusian businessman, it was subsequently ].


:Btw, the last time Oct13 has ever edited a noticeboard was on June 6 2020. The last 2 times they edited a talk page were on February 17 2022 and April 15 2020. ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 17:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
I want to make a point of mentioning that one of the criticisms was that corruption of said businessman was not covered in the article and therefore it was ]. See {{diff|Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Alexander Zaytsev (businessman)|1006189139|1006170966}}, and the points made there by that same user. In other words, some editors found that the content was too neutral and did not include coverage about alleged corruption.
::It also looks like the main thing they have done on their own talk pages in the last seven or eight years is to just repeatedly blank it. We may have a ] situation here. ] ] 01:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
This editor's editing looks to consist largely of making inappropriate edits, "sourced" if at all to unreliable sources, and perhaps in hopes that if enough of that is done, a few will slip by. As we're unlikely to hear from them, I'd be in favor of indefinitely blocking them, at the very least until they meaningfully engage regarding the problems with their editing. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 01:55, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


:I second that. As we wait here, they continue to edit, and all have been reverted. Perhaps an articlespace block until we get a satisfactory response?—&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 03:23, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
At 14:10, 6 March 2021 I inserted a comment on the deletion discussion page, which I can not reproduce accurately because {{u|Nick}} deleted it, wherein I referred to the subject, as a "wallet" linking an written by leading Belarusian authority ]. The origin of my use of the word "wallets" comes from a Google Translation of that article as I do not speak Russian. In it Andrei calls for increased sanctions on powerful business people in Belarus.
::I've blocked them indefinitely from mainspace. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 05:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::Liz invited them to reply here. Let’s keep this open for now and see if the user responds, now that regular editing of articles is blocked.—&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 15:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


== Ottawahitech, requesting an appeal on their talk page restriction ==
After Nick removes that reference, which is quite surprising to me, I respond to Nick at 15:18 by {{diff|User talk:Jabbi|1010643749|1010639542|suggesting that there has not been a violation of BLP}}. Nick does not respond and I continue a debate with another user who initiates ] about whether or not the Belarusian businessman should be mentioned in the article about ].
{{atop|1=User wants to use Misplaced Pages as a social network. ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}}
Hello, I find that {{user|Ottawahitech}} has opened an appeal about their talk page restriction.


At 17:02, almost two hours after I responded to Nick's actions, Nick {{diff|User talk:Jabbi|1010660928|1010660657|asks on my talk page}} that I explain my use of the term wallet. I continue the debate in the minor editing war. But at 17:47, exactly 45 minutes after having asked the question, {{diff|Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring|1010668748|1010668192|Nick simply declares}}:
I'm still waiting for your detailed description of what you (and reliable sources) mean by the term "wallet". I think, since you've not answered but are editing here, we will have to go with a topic ban from BLPs instead. Paperwork incoming at your talk page.


As I have told the blocking admin, whom I am not pinging at their request, I do not wish to appeal my block. Before I was blocked at the discretion of Beeblebrox/Just Step Sideways I made about 75,000 "edits" to the English Misplaced Pages, and have continued contributing to other Wikimedia projects since my Block in 2017. I enjoy my recent volunteer activity more than I did my activity here, and do not ask for a complete unblock. However, I would still like to be able to communicate with fellow wikipedia editors and request the removal of the restrictions that have been imposed on my user-talk.<br>
In other words, Nick can not articulate how BLP has been broken, but wants me to clarify my use of terms and not only is he not prepared to wait an hour for my answer (despite having taken almost two hours to follow up to me), he sees the appropriate response to be a ban on editing BLPs for a whole year.
Notice to the admin handling this request: Just to let you know I am a very infrequent visitor to the English Misplaced Pages, and as such there is no urgency in acting on this request. Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 23:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)


I'd copy them here. Though in my opinion, the restriction just came along commonly as the indef block. Hoping someone may like to review that. ] 15:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
I have raised the issue with Nick on ] and he has asked me to note that another admin emphasized to me {{diff|Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring|1010665873|1010665513|the importance of not making accusations of corruption}} but I have not done so which makes the point moot. [[


:This might be better at ]. — ] (]) 15:12, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
I have explained to Nick that I have used the terms "]" and incidentally "wallet", simply because I read that opinion piece earlier today, in discussions. This does not break BLP.
::Moved per request] 15:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::What was Ottawahitech blocked for to begin with? My understanding is something to do with bad page creation attempts and / or edit warring at article talk. Is this correct? Has Ottawahitech demonstrated that they understand what they did was wrong? Because they appear to have been indeffed in 2017 and indefinite doesn't mean forever. If they've shown recognition of what led to their block and have committed not to repeat their mistakes then I'd be inclined to say this looks like a reasonable request. ] (]) 15:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Their previous block seemed a little bit like ] block, and I'm, auch, due to my interaction with them on another project, I'm inclining a not unblock. ] 15:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:@]: why did you post this here? I didn't see Ottawa make a request for this to go to AN. Additionally, blocked means blocked. We don't let blocked editors use their talk page to shoot the shit with other editors. If Ottawa wants to chat with old friends, they can email each other. ] (]/]) 15:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::I agree that we should decline this request. We're here to write an encyclopedia, not run a chat board. If Ottawahitech is interested in the social aspects of wikipedia, they should pursue other communication channels. Perhaps the ] is what they're looking for. ] ] 20:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Argh. I came here for an entirely different reason, but I am unsurprised to see the persistent ] behavior of this user continues on.
:::I blocked them in 2017 for persistent failure to abide by basic content policies, mainly being very experienced but still regularly creating pages that qualified for speedy deletion. I believe there was a discussion somewhere that led to it but I seem to have failed to note it in the block log. What I do recall is that they did not participate in that discussion.
:::Several months later another admin revoked talk pages access because they were using the page to chat, and to ask other users to proxy for them, while not addressing the block.
:::Four years later they contacted me via another WMF site and I did them the courtesy of re-instating their talk page for purposes of appealing their block. They then indicated they didn't want to do that, they just wanted talk page access back.
:::And that's still all they want. They don't ''want'' to rejoin this community as an editor. There's no point to even discussing this except to consider the possibility of re-revoking TP access to avoid further time wasting nonsense like this. ] ] 21:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
FTR, ] that led to the block of Ottawahitech. --'']'' <small>] ]</small> 21:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== ] backlog doin' great ==
A politically exposed person is as "individuals who are, or have been, entrusted with prominent public functions, such as heads of state or government. The standard setters and a considerable number of jurisdictions also expect financial institutions to treat a prominent public official’s family and close associates as PEPs" and since Zaytsev is a verified associate of Viktor Lukashenko it is reasonable to refer to him as a politically exposed person. Just to further the argument, says that Zaytsev should be considered a "] – or PEP – due to with the Lukashenko regime." .


I know I ruffled some feathers with the way I approached this last month, but I'm pleased to report that as of this writing there are less than twenty pending unblock requests, many of those being CU blocks. Not that long ago the daily average was closer to eighty. I certainly did not do this alone, in fact I was ill for a week there and did basically nothing. Quite a number of admins and others pitched in in various ways over the past few weeks to move things along.
Even if it was found that I have violated BLP, then I would argue that everything I have done is with good intent and I have argued by case going by due process. Nick on the other hand has shown little regard for process, given no explanations and meted out a disproportionate punishment.
--] (]) 00:50, 7 March 2021 (UTC)


That's great, but we should not get complacent, as that was what led to the backlog being so bad before. Thanks to everyone who helped get it to where it is now. I would again encourage any and all admins to pitch in whatever they can to keep this manageable. Any substantive review of an unblock request helps. Thanks again to ''everyone'' who helped make this suck a little less. ] ] 21:32, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::It isn't disproportionate. You ignored warnings, edit warred, created numerous BLP vios that had to be revision deleted and then continued with ]. This has been explained to you on your talk page, both article talk pages and the AFd in question. I'd recommend a boomerang here. ] 02:02, 7 March 2021 (UTC)


== Call for mentors ==
::: {{re|User:Praxidicae}}, funny to see you here. Again, what warnings? The edit war you refer to was initiated by you and concluded with you saying you don't care anymore, the content you tried to remove still stands. Can you point to any BLP vio? Is there anything contentious other than the discussion about peps/wallets? Please put forward arguments, and if you can be bothered, include diffs. Otherwise, your contribution is rather like hot air. And, not disproportionate? I have a good record apart from this, is a year a short time? What's the big concern? Finally, the edit war is unrelated to the BLP issue under discussion here. You ] about content unrelated to Nick's ambiguous charge of BLP and were found to be in the wrong. --] (]) 02:28, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
::::This is really disruptive now. You literally acknowledged these warnings. We're well into ] territory now (and have been for some time) and I'd suggest at this point someone offer an involuntary break until Jabbi can thoroughly read policy, their talk page and reflect on it.
:::: by Nick at 14:49 following Jabbi's BLP violating comments which were subsequently revdelled after my comments to them at the AFD.
:::: by Jabbi at 15:18
:::: at 15:50 about a comment made by and after a lengthy discussion about BLP, which they also , my comment was a result of concern about them introducing the BLP violating material to ''a different BLP'' but about the same subject at AFD.
::::After their comment about merging said material into ] I grew concerned and noticed an existing BLP violation there (one of many which I haven't addressed yet) and adequately explained my removal in my , and edit summaries, as well as on To which Jabbi claims I provided no explanation. I even provided the specific text of the BLP policy, despite their earlier acknowledgement of understanding it and twice.
::::And finally, their on the mainspace BLP indicates their ] and inability to adhere to ] by trying to connect a non-notable businessman to a dictator. {{tq|How is documenting the son of the dictators involvement with a notable business figure undue weight? --Jabbi (talk) 12:10 pm, Yesterday (UTC−5)}}. This wasn't an innocent addition of a name to an article, as evidenced by their revdelled comments, comments here and elsewhere, itw as an attempt to again connect the dots to corruption despite lacking any reliable sourcing to do so.
::::So how many warnings do you need, exactly? This doesn't even delve into your persistent edit warring and POV problems nor your repeated personal attacks. If you really think you weren't adequately warned or this wasn't clearly explained to you by at least two different people, perhaps we should be discussing what level of competence is required to edit BLPs.
::::If anyone reviewing this needs me to lay out more diffs, I can but I think a review of the general discussion, edits and edit summary as well as their talk page is sufficient evidence that this ban is '''more''' than warranted and necessary. ] 15:25, 7 March 2021 (UTC)


There's a discussion at ] about extending the mentorship module to all new accounts. Presently, all new accounts are ''assigned'' a mentor, but only half of them receive the module that allows them to send questions to that mentor directly from the newcomer homepage. We'd like to extend the module access to ''all'' new accounts, but we're a bit short of the "ideal" number of mentors to do so - we're looking to get about 30 more. Posting here because the experienced users who haunt this noticeboard are likely to make good mentors. Basically the only requirement is "not jerk, has clue", with a side of "you should be someone who logs in frequently enough that your mentees won't feel ignored". Most of the questions you get are very easy to resolve. Some are harder. Every so often you get something actually fun. -- ] (]) 23:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
{{re|Praxidicae}}, I have conceded in a comment here below that there is one, singular BLP violation. There is one revision deletion on a talk page related to that single violation. Otherwise, a discussion about references to the above Sannikov opinion piece (that is "wallets") can not be considered a BLP violation as it does not imply anything unlawful, only being wealthy and therefore influential because of Lukashenko's patronage. The article about the original business man has now been delete, that is fine, references to the relationship between the 10th wealthies man in Belarus and the son of the dictator are due, if there's an agend ascribed to promoting such transparency, then I am guilty. --] (]) 12:47, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
:I signed up sometime last year, and I'd guesstimate that I've received questions from maybe 10% of the accounts I'm assigned to mentor. So far (knock on wood) it hasn't been onerous at all. (Hoping that will encourage more editors to give it a try.) ]&nbsp;] 23:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::And yet you so markedly still miss the point. {{tq|references to the relationship between the 10th wealthies man in Belarus and the son of the dictator are due, if there's an agend ascribed to promoting such transparency, then I am guilty.}} At least we agree on that much, and how appropriate, another BLP violation in this very thread. PS: to your comment below, I am not male and I am not required to be uninvolved to comment here or suggest an outcome. ] applies to admin actions generally, not discussions regarding disruptive behavior of editors. ] 12:53, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
:Just signed up. I had played with the idea before, but given there are well over a hundred mentors and I don't hear much about it, I assumed it wasn't terribly active or in need of more people. ] (]) 03:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
{{ping|Barkeep49}}, can I please ask if you are aware of any specific concern about BLP violations on my behalf? I ask because I suspect the only reason {{diff|Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring|1010665873|1010665513|you asked me to confirm that I should not allege corruption}} is because of context of Nick's actions, rather than anything you would attribute directly to me. Please correct me if I'm wrong. --] (]) 02:32, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
::I've noticed I'm getting fewer questions, which I assume is because more mentors have signed up over time but the number of new accounts receiving the module has remained constant (it's a rare mentee who comes back and asks multiple questions over time). So it's true in a way that it didn't really need more people. I expect that you'll notice a significant boost when it goes to 100% and then a gradual decline again. -- ] (]) 14:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:Time to add an option for three time the number of mentees assigned. ] (]) 07:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::Seconding this, I wouldn't be opposed to taking over more mentees if there is a need for it until we get more mentors. ] (] · ]) 22:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Agreed, though the max number of mentees per page might want to be increased to 50 from 25. ''']]''' 00:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:I signed up a week ago, and only got a single question asked of me. How many people are using the newcomer dashboard? There, I have found, aren't many users signing up and editing per day, per ListUsers, so I can't imagine there are very many people using the mentorship at all.
:I'd be curious to see what automatically assigning mentors would do to retention rates (maybe that's written somewhere). ''']]''' 17:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::I've been "twice as many" assigned for quite awhile now (I think I was one of the first mentors when the program even launched) and I'd say it's not atypical to only get ten or so queries a month. You can look through my talk page archives if you want a more accurate number (also note that sometimes I revert mentee questions if they're obvious spam). ] ] 04:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I just counted and it looks like I've had 156 questions since February 2022. ] ] 04:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


==Discussion at ]==
Note to others, ], is not an uninvolved editor and his unsupported views here should be disregarded. --] (]) 02:41, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
]&nbsp;You are invited to join the discussion at ]. –] <small>(])</small> 10:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)<!-- ] -->


== Kansascitt1225 ban appeal ==
:Well, speaking for myself, I would have done the same thing. Revdel followed by an ] ban, due to prior BLP problems. For admins, the diff in question is . I'm also struck by the OP's use of the phrase {{tq|too neutral}} — I think that's a first for me. Like, what is meant by "too neutral"? Surely it can't be ''lacking in editorializing.'' Anyway, just because the owners of Belorussian businesses (in general) may need to keep decent contacts with components of a shady regime, does not necessarily follow that they are doing anything shady themselves.


I am posting the following appeal on behalf of {{user21|Kansascitt1225}}, who is considered banned by the community per ]:
:So, accusing someone of being a money laundering "wallet," doing so on the basis of a machine translation from an unreliable source — that a serious problem. That could be ruinous for such a borderline-notable living person as ]. So, fine application of the BLP hammer on Nick's part. Jabbi, more broadly, about ]. We have a standard of reliability for sources on the project. We can't pick and choose to lower it for this or that country due to its poor press freedoms performances. That's just not a thing. ] 03:38, 7 March 2021 (UTC)


(keeping it short for WP:TLDR) Hi Misplaced Pages community, it has been over 1 year since I edited on Misplaced Pages without evading my block or breaking community rules. I would like to be given another chance to edit. I realized that my blocking was due to my behavior of creating multiple accounts and using them on the same page and creating issues during a disagreement. I was younger then and am now able to communicate more effectively with others. I intend to respect community rules and not be disruptive to the community. I was upset years ago when I mentioned Kansas City’s urban decay and it was reverted as false and I improperly reacted in a disruptive way that violated the community rules. The mistake I made which caused the disruptive behavior was that I genuinely thought people were reverting my edits due to the racist past of this county and keeping out blacks and having a dislike for the county. I also thought suburbs always had more single family housing and less jobs than cities. In this part of the United States a suburb means something different than what it means in other parts of the world and is more of a political term for other municipalities which caught me off guard and wasn’t what I grew up thinking a suburb was.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://slate.com/business/2015/05/urban-density-nearly-half-of-america-s-biggest-cities-look-like-giant-suburbs.html}}</ref> Some of these suburbs have lower single family housing rates and higher population density and this specific county has more jobs than the “major city” (referenced in previous unblock request if interested). This doesn’t excuse my behavior but shows why I was confused and I should have properly addressed it in the talk pages instead of edit warring or creating accounts. After my initial blocking, I made edits trying to improve the project thinking that would help my case when it actually does the opposite because I was bypassing my block which got me community banned to due the automatic 3 strikes rule. I have not since bypassed my block. I’m interested in car related things as well as cities and populations of the United States and want to improve these articles using good strong references. Thanks for reading. ] (]) 04:46, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:: But in the article in question, there is no direct accusation of money laundering. I should clarify, the implication in the article is that in order to be successful in business in Belarus, you need patronage from Lukashenko. This is a given, therefore, wallets, just mean rich people. Not necessarily criminally so. This is a connotation you are yourself bringing into play. Can you tell me where in the article by Sannikov money laundering is mentioned? And when questioned about my intentions, I explained my understanding of the term as being equivalent as pep. Is then a year's ban not disproportionate? --] (]) 03:44, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
:::Yes, I realize it was said in the deletion discussion, but, you know, reporters can click on links. Everything said on-wiki is public and subject to BLP. ] 04:02, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
:::: Again, where is the link between wallet and money laundering? I don't know where you get that from. Taking circumstances into account, i.e. this is not a wilful defamation, is a year's ban normal? What I am trying to say, Sannikov's article does not suggest money laundering. What's the problem with a rich guy being called a wallet? --] (]) 04:05, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
:::: If you had clicked on the link I provided you could have seen discussion on the afd where a user accuses me of making "the article is not even close to be neutral. No words of corruption. See at least one source on corruption..." What I meant by "too neutral" which is clumsily worded, is that I did not include sources on corruption. --] (]) 04:13, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
:::::You said, and I quote (in part): {{tq|in the article I have linked independent journalism covering probable <u>money laundering</u> by Zaytsev in neighbouring Lithuania}} (underline is my emphasis). ] 04:19, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
::::: {{strike|Yes. But this is unrelated to the discussion around wallets. That article is about Zaytsev's dealings in Lithuania. . This has got nothing to do with the BLP vio Nick based his decision on.}} --] (]) 04:33, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
::::: Fair enough. But a year's ban. That's a bit heavy. --] (]) 04:42, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
::::::I, actually, would not have set the duration to expire, but I guess Nick is a nicer guy. ] 04:49, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
::::::: That sounds strangely vindictive and counter-productive given the circumstances. That fact that you justify Nick's actions using personal characteristics rather than objective facts is disappointing. --] (]) 11:22, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
::::::::"Arbitrary and unreasonable," even? Oh well, at least it's brief and forthright. ] 11:57, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
::::::::{{re|El_C}}, there are several mitigating factors I contend; 1) a prior discussion in the same vein, 2) it is a talk page, 3) I have shown caution in main space edits, 4) a long history of valid work and 5) rather clear indication of good will. I understand if you disagree but to me this matters. If there is strong intent to spread misinformation here, accounts can be circumvented as I am sure you realise. I respect the consensus here as elsewhere, but again, I think this is disproportionate. --] (]) 12:50, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
:::::::::Look, ], I feel that bringing up mitigating circumstances (of whatever nature) sidesteps the point here. Which is to always err on the side of a conservative BLP approach, especially for borderline-notable living persons (i.e. ] ]). Let's not forget that there is a real human being at the other end one of this. One who, again, is <u>not</u> even remotely notable as, say, a head of state or high-end celebrity. Hoping this salient point resonates this time. ] 13:05, 8 March 2021 (UTC)


{{reflist-talk}} ] (]/]) 21:22, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::], the thing about setting a clock is that it's obviously less useful if the sanctioned individual doesn't appreciate the gravity behind the violation, which greatly increases the likelihood for the violation to repeat at some point after the sanction lapses. To me, that's sort of a fact. ] 12:36, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
* '''(mildly involved) Support'''. I gave feedback on an earlier version of their ban appeal. This is five years since the initial block. Five years and many, many socks, and many, many arguments. But with no recent ban evasion and a commitment to communicate better, I think it's time to give a second chance. -- ] (]) 21:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Endorse sanction'''. Jabbi| is making this all about ''them''. ] --<b>] ]</b> 08:50, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per asilvering and ]. ] (]/]) 21:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
: {{re|Deepfriedokra}} You seem not to have read my arguments about what edits and references to sources said. You endorse a year's ban for a single violation done when there is good intent? --] (]) 11:19, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. Five years is a long time. Willing to trust for a second chance.] (]) 21:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
* Ideally I'd want to see some indication that they don't intend to ] as the issue seems to be rather ideological in nature and I don't see that addressed in the appeal. I also don't love the failure to understand a lot of issues around their block/conduct and their inability to effectively communicate ] and on their ]. ] (]) 00:00, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Would a topic ban from Kansas-related topics help? This was floated as a bare minimum two or so years ago. -- ] (]) 00:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*:I'm not that concerned by the RGW issue. Their communication on this appeal has been clear, they responded to my feedback regarding their unblock request, and they've indicated they'll not edit war and seek consensus for their edits. ] (]/]) 00:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*Is my maths just bad or is January 2019 not six years ago rather than five? In any event it's been a long time since they tried to evade. I'm leaning toward giving a second chance but I'd really like them to understand that walls of text are not a good way to communicate, that they need to post in paragraphs, and that Misplaced Pages is not a place for righting great wrongs. ] (]) 16:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*:{{tq|Is my maths just bad or is January 2019 not six years ago rather than five?}} ssssshhh. -- ] (]) 18:02, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


== Heritage Foundation ==
* I am having trouble understanding your sense of justice. I have many thousand edits on my record, mainly on my Icelandic Misplaced Pages. Never had a vio. And now there is a single vio, just one, where I use the word probable. There is no repeat offence as the use of the term "wallet" can not be seen as a BLP vio, or else explain how. --] (]) 11:17, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
::the fact that you think it’s over one edit and one word is indicative of the problem here. Your edits on other projects are irrelevant, policies are different and certain articles and categories of articles are authorized for discretionary sanctions here by arbcom motion and community consensus. You were repeatedly informed of this, acknowledged it, said you understood and continued anyway. This isn’t about justice, it’s about disruption and protection. This ban was necessary to stop the disruption and protect the integrity of the project and biographies of living people. ] 11:52, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
::], maybe badgering the respondents to your own appeal isn't the best look, or is conducive to it succeeding (even in ameliorating it somewhat)...? Just throwing it out there. ] 11:57, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
*{{u|Jabbi}}, ]. We aren't interested in justice. We are not a police force, or court of law. We are interested in solutions and fairness, which are very different. ] - ] 12:11, 7 March 2021 (UTC)


There is a discussion at ] that may be of interest to those who watch this noticeboard, especially if you edit in the PIA topic area. ] ] 04:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::: I feel unjustly treated here. I think I will cease participating completely in Misplaced Pages. As a parting wish I would just ask that someone finish ]. Thanks for everyone who's contributed here. Goodbye and good luck --] (]) 14:49, 7 March 2021 (UTC)


== Deleted contributions request ==
:::: Unfortunately, I feel wronged to such an extent that I feel I have to defend myself. I hope everyone understands. My responses are sometimes curt, or sarcastic, this is to my detriment and I can only apoligize for that. However, like I say, I feel that some statements here are factually incorrect and others value judgements that I disagree with but respect. --] (]) 12:42, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
{{atop|Done and dusted. Good work all. - ] <sub>]</sub> 06:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}}
:::::Considering the violation, coupled with the tone and tenor of many of your responses here and elsewhere (their aggressive and dismissive nature as well as their ]'ing frequency), I think you've been treated with general courtesy, overall. Being blunt, at times, is just par for the course for these sort of discussions. Our goal is to build an encyclopedia, not to provide a social-justicy safe space, where discussions inevitably become muted as contributors are forced to walk on eggshells. I was gonna leave your above comment unanswered, but seeing as you still continue to engage here, even after this announcement of your departure from en, I thought it'd be worthwhile to set the record straight. ] 13:16, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
I'm currently leading an investigation at the English Wikibooks into poorly attributed page importations from the 2000s (decade). One page I discovered was ], which was allegedly imported from an enwiki page called ], but this page does not appear to have ever existed. It looks like this page was deleted at VFD in 2004, but there is no deletion log entry, so I can't find the original page to re-import to Wikibooks. Its talk page provides a page history for this enwiki article, which includes an anonymous editor whose IP address is {{IPvandal|62.200.132.17}}. If the privacy policy allows it, I would like to know the titles of the pages that this user edited in their three deleted contributions (I don't need the content, just the titles). ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 05:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


:{{ping|JJPMaster}} The only deleted contributions from that IP are to the deleted article you linked above and garden variety vandalism of a redirect saying that "this is junk". If you're looking for poorly attributed page importations, this specific IP would be a dead end on that front. ] ] 05:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::: What I've corrected is the accusation of several BLP violations. I am content you are referring to a single violation. And to be clear, I understand what it is I did that broke policy and why. I will learn from that if I decide to edit again. I do not need a safe-space, but being up against many and feel wronged in some way can be frustrating. --] (]) 13:32, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
::@]: Nope, that's actually all I needed to know&mdash;I really just needed this information to verify the page title. Could this page be undeleted in my userspace so I can complete the proper import and merge? ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 05:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Well, what I got from this thus far is that you've committed multiple and egregious BLP violations, even if these only concerned this one borderline-notable living person (by way of ]). Possibly, there are other BLP violations which concern other living persons...? I don't know. ] 14:01, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
:::{{ping|JJPMaster}} Done at ]. I've never done something like this before so let me know if I messed up. I removed for VfD nomination template in case that screwed with bots or whatever. Let me know if there's anything else I can do to help. ] ] 05:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::: You've not spoken of this before. Nick certainly only reverted one edit. Is there anything specific you think violates BLP? Now I don't want to argue ad nauseam but charges such as these have to be 100%. My argument is that in the removed edit there is certain context put forward that violates BLP, I accept and understand that, it was a mistake. Consecutive references to the Sannimov article, taken on their own, are however not such violations. Or do you disagree? --] (]) 15:22, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
::::@]: The import and merge are {{done}}. Please delete the page now. ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 05:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::Again, I'm not familiar enough with your editing history to comment further on that at this time. So, I'll let those who do take it from here. But these were egregious BLPCRIME violations, which involved multiple revisions requiring revdels. For whatever that's worth. ] 16:56, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
:::::{{ping|JJPMaster}} I've deleted the page. ] ] 05:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::: Nick only removes 2 successive edits made in a short timespan by me as can be . There's no multiple revisions. The way you use that word egregious repeatedly is a bit dramatic. remember, in my quote I say ''probable'', emphasis mine. --] (]) 19:25, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
:::::::::::Again, only a passing familiarity, but you can now add an additional "wallet" revdel to the mix (). Anyway, I'm not sure why, after everything, you think calling the response to your BLPCRIME violations "dramatic" helps your case here, but whatever. ] 19:54, 8 March 2021 (UTC) The reason you couldn't find it in the deletion log is because logs . This page was deleted ]. —] 06:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}
:::::::::::: I think we'll be fine as long as you don't use it the third time. I'm not making light of the singular BLP violation, it's just that I work at a university library and I rarely come across that word. No one notified me of additional rev-dels. But this brings us back a full circle to my original question, Why is it a BLP to call someone a wallet with reference to Sannikov's article. Anyway, thanks for your time. --] (]) 20:08, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
:::::::::::::I think we'll be fine, regardless. In answer to your question: it was because of the money laundering connotations. Also noting several additional revdels, but I won't bother linking to them, this time. ] 23:14, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
::::::::::::::What money laundering connotations? If the only mention of a BLPCRIME is in the first original revdel by Nick. What connotation is there to money laundering if I am only referring to Belarusian business people described in Sannikov's piece as wallets? Have you really thought this through C? This is the question I put forward in the beginning of this thread. I'm glad we've finally reached a place where we can discuss it. Also, how many revdels did you commit and how many are there in total if Nick did one and let me know on my talk page? --] (]) 00:57, 9 March 2021 (UTC)


== ] behavior (or 'very' slow learner) from ] ==
{{od}} Like, hinting of playing host to a shady crypto wallet for whomever...? I dunno. Doesn't matter, sounds shady, is the point. Also, why do you need me to count the revdels for you? I don't really understand what you're asking me. ] 04:55, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
{{atop|result=Editor hasn't edited in a week, feel free to reopen should disruption continue if they return. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 03:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}}
:I'm not going to bother reading a translation of the Russian article, but from the context the reference to wallet seems to have troubling connotations. It suggests at a minimum ], where these business people are benefiting from corruption in the country e.g. being awarded state contracts, and not because they are truly the best business but simply because they are friends with the right people. In return, these business people help out the politicians and their families financially as needed. So while the politicians may not themselves have tremendous amounts of money in their bank accounts or whatever, they have access to tremendous amounts of money via the business people i.e. their wallets. Probably this money probably isn't just used for direct personal benefit of politicians, sometimes e.g. around election time or otherwise when there's need to try and show something to the people, it may come back to the people in the form of projects supported by the state or pet projects of some politicians e.g. to act as their legacy, which the state can't afford. So instead these "generous" business people and their companies are the ones who finance these projects, ignoring the fact they are primarily rich of the backs of the state anyway, so it's really ultimately mostly state money even if the ownership is in some companies name. Again I can't be sure if this is what the author of the article meant since I don't understand Russian and it's risky to try to understand an article based on a machine translation, worse when you don't understand the social-political background behind it. It seems clear that Jabbi lacks that too though. It makes no sense to suggest there's no shady connotations. Rich business people don't act as "wallets" for politicians if they're not getting anything in return, there has to be some ]. At least it must come in the form of no persecution, but frankly that suggests a power imbalance which is unlikely i.e. the business people do have tremendous amounts of power and aren't likely satisfied with just being allowed to exist, they must be getting something more in return. It may very well be that it's impossible to be a sufficient successful business person in Belarus with getting involved in that. If it is, then it is, this can be mentioned in relation to specific individuals if supported by suitable reliable sources. Otherwise no. ] (]) 06:34, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
]'s talk page has got some history. It would seem they have a habit of AfCing articles on rappers and sports teams, failing them, and then making them anyway, such as with ] which is currently at ] and looks like it deserves a PROD. They've been repeatedly informed to include sources and citations but seem to fail to do so. But my ] allegation comes from at the AfD where they blanked the page, seemingly in an attempt to obstruct the AfD process. Does this behavior warrant administrator action beyond a stern talking-to? ] (]) 10:10, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:Sure, a long talk page, but not a single non-templated notice as far as I can tell (though I might have missed one). I think a kind word would suffice, at least to start out with. ] (]) 10:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::I generally concur, however, this user (a.k.a. ]) doesn't seem to be interested in talking to anyone about his actions. ] (]) 21:06, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


Left a warning and note on his user talk page. Hopefully he engages. If such behavior continues, a block may be necessary to get his attention and drive the collaborative process. While I support such a block, it should ONLY be used to stop such disruptive behavior if it continues. Once that ceases and he's willing to collaboratively edit, such a block should be lifted post haste! ] (]) 21:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:: The op-ed is short and general, does not refer to specific individuals or suggest criminal activity. If I may quote , I can with ease provide more if required: "''One can witness the politicisation of ], their role being a source of resources to be distributed for meeting political goals. The politicisation of SOEs à rebours is paramount, their rents originate from their privileged position set up by the state – although SOEs seem to play a passive part here (unlike, e.g. in Poland – Kozarzewski and Bałtowski, 2017), being mainly an object of the state’s economic populism actions. The latter seems to be one of the cornerstones of Belarusian economic policy, with the authorities trying to create the widest possible clientelist base.''" and also: "''State authorities may give large private enterprises a monopolistic position on the market in exchange for profit sharing with the state (going far beyond ordinary taxation).''". Make no mistake, Belarus is an authoritarian state. Moreover, as I have repeatedly explained, in this specific case, I was referring to a business man who has a verified background of being an aide to ], making him fall under the definition of a politically exposed persons, which is also the view of , an academic who specialises in the politics of the area . --] (]) 11:37, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
{{abot}}
:: Also, as {{u|Nil Einne}} rightly points out, the meaning of "wallet" in the article is highly contextualised. I have however, from the very beginning, consistently explained what meaning I attributed to it, see: {{diff|User talk:Jabbi|1010643749|1010639542|here}} & other now references to wallets deleted. --] (]) 11:46, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
:: Finally, have you considered at all the possibility that in Russian, "wallet" is simply slang for a rich dude? --] (]) 12:07, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
:: A : "''Corruption. The country’s continuous push for liberalization of the business climate was offset by the strengthening position of the Belarusian KGB. The latter has emerged as a top patronage network in the system of power, capable of eliminating bureaucratic competitors for the distribution of rents, as well as obstructing the prosecution of those suspected of graft. Belarus’s corruption rating remains unchanged at 6.00.''" The states: "''Are safeguards against official corruption strong and effective? '''1 / 4''' The state controls at least 70 percent of the economy, and graft is encouraged by a lack of transparency and accountability in government. There are no independent bodies to investigate corruption cases, and graft trials are typically closed. Presidential clemency has been issued occasionally to free convicted corrupt officials, some of whom Lukashenka has returned to positions of authority.''" --] (]) 12:22, 9 March 2021 (UTC)


== Notice about Tulsi Bhagat's request for global rollback == == Confusion about two articles that may be covering the same person ==
{{archive top|result=The request that prompted this has been withdrawn, most of their local permissions have been revoked, their doesn't seem to be anything else proposed at this time. ] (]) 20:11, 7 March 2021 (UTC)|status=I think we're done here.}}
Hello, I would like to let you know that Tulsi Bhagat requested global rollback via . The global rollback flag grants autopatrol on all Wikimedia sites, including English Misplaced Pages, with no possibility to opt-out.


The pages are ] and ]. Can an administrator please find the correct name and merge them, if they are the same person? ] (]) 22:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
The requestor previously had that flag, and it was ] for repetately creating on English Misplaced Pages, misusing the <code>autopatrol</code> bit granted as part of global rollback.


:Are they the same person? The date of birth (for ]) is the same in the text (without a source here), but in the infobox (added by an IP without a source: ]) it's different... <s>Honestly, I feel it would be easier to just give up on this one,</s> it was created by a sock-puppeteer (albeit on their original account, though they edited it with multiple socks too, seemingly all reverted), <s>it's quite possibly a waste of time.</s>
Since the previous removal involved English Misplaced Pages, I would like to explicitly invite English Misplaced Pages to the ], to voice your thoughts.
:That said I didn't actually investigate what is salvageable about the content - just reverted the last 2 edits by an IP. &ndash; ] (]) (]) 22:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC) *edited: 05:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::], this seems like a valid inquiry, why would it be considered a "waste of time"? I don't know what you mean by "giving up on this one" when it's a matter of investigating whether we have a duplicate article here. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 02:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::I'm not sure why you seem to be attempting to discourage people looking into this. Seems like something that would be both possible, and important, to do. Or at the very least, attempt. ] ] 02:58, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Fair enough, I shouldn't be discouraging. I was thinking this might be a ] kind of situation (for the second linked article), due to the amount of socking and unsourced edits, and the article already existing if it's the same person, as opposed to merging them - but you are both right that it's always worth checking.
:::I'll just cross out that part of the comment. &ndash; ] (]) (]) 05:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:I don't think this is an admin thing, it's a content issue; shouldn't it be discussed on one of the talk pages, possibly with a ], instead of here? ]] 08:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)


== Non-EC editor editing ARBPIA, broadly construed. ==
Sincerely, ] (]) 08:29, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
:The request has now been withdrawn. ] (]) 11:53, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
::Good. --<b>] ]</b> 12:23, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
::Considering their ], what's their status on ENWIKI? Are they not ]ned? If not, why not? --<b>] ]</b> 12:29, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
:::He was not CBANned ( locally blocked), though he was and got most advanced user rights . As far as I can tell, there was never an AN(I) discussion about formal community sanctions for Tulsi. ]<nowiki>|</nowiki>] 13:24, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
::::Was ] the last about it? –]] 13:29, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
:::::Yes.{{pb}}I first came across him at ] but I was too new and had perhaps a bit too much AGF and veneration for long-term editors of WMF projects, so I backed down as soon as a third party came to his defence. I was then especially concerned about how he received advanced permissions despite history: IRC? I hope that platform does not have an official status for onwiki business. ''']&nbsp;]''' 13:46, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
:There's more than just the hat collecting, global lock and using autoreview that was paired with GR rights. We are ] about ] by other users. I have a hard time assuming good faith on that end considering the nature of the content and rather dubious black hat SEO involved in getting that pushed everywhere. ] 13:54, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
::Yes, that’s more recent. Was there a discussion about the editor’s involvement, or are you applying the duck test? –]] 14:34, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
:::It's a mix of things that I probably shouldn't discuss on-wiki but it's fairly obvious there something more going on between the accounts (I don't think one is the sock of the other) but nothing that can ever be definitively proven because of the nature of Misplaced Pages. I guess I'm just saying if anyone is looking at the history between the editors involved in what I linked, it becomes fairly obvious. ] 16:22, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}
:Didn't see this until after it was closed, but for the record ({{ping|Martin Urbanec|p=}}) following ] my bot automatically unpatrols new articles created by global rollbackers that are not locally autopatrolled, so while technically projects cannot opt-out of global rollbackers having autopatrol, in practice it shouldn't be much of an issue here on enwiki. --] (]) 02:35, 8 March 2021 (UTC)


This is intended as a "heads-up", asking for admin eyes, and letting admins know what I have done. I noticed edits by {{userlinks|OnuJones}} to ] and ], removing mentions of Palestine or changing Palestine to Israel. I have undone the edits. I have placed welcome/warning templates on their usertalk page, as advised when I asked recently on AN about a similar situation. The account in question was created on 4 December 2020, made two edits on that day, and then nothing until the three edits on the 7th January this year that caught my eye. I shall forthwith add <nowiki>{{subst:AN-notice}}~~~~</nowiki> to their usertalk page. ] (]) 23:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
== Czechia RFC instead of RM ==


:I don't think this really needs admin attention. Your CTOP notice suffices. If they continue making those kinds of edits, you can go to AE or ANI. ] (]/]) 23:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Hi, is there any chance an uninvolved admin could have a look at ]? There have been several RM requests over the years that have consistently rejected the name Czechia as the title, but now an RFC has been started on the same topic, which looks like an attempt to move the article without going through the proper ] process. Several editors have commented that the RFC lacks standing and is the wrong venue for a requested move, and given that it's the wrong venue it's hard to see that a consensus for a page move could ever be formed in that way. I think the RFC should be either closed or converted into a proper RM, instead of chewing up editor time in this confusing state until its expiry date of early April, but I've been quite involved in RMs on that subject in the past so am not able to perform an early closure myself. Cheers &nbsp;&mdash;&nbsp;] (]) 16:15, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
::I might have to reread the ARBPIA restrictions because these two edits are about incidents around World War I. I'm not sure they are covered by ARBPIA restrictions which I tend to remember are about contemporary events. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 02:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*Taken care of. ] - ] 16:41, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
:::I think the concern is that while the ''articles'' aren't ARBPIA per se, the ''edits'' ({{tqq|changing Palestine to Israel}} ) are clearly ARBPIA-motivated, as it were. (Even leaving aside the historical inaccuracy in that Israel didn't exist at the time!) - ] <sub>]</sub> 03:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:*Argh! Same. ] 16:46, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
::::I would consider the edits to be within the realm of ] ]. '']''<sup>]</sup> 03:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Those kinds of transparently false Palestine to Israel or Israel to Palestine edits should result in a block without warning and without any red tape in my view. They know what they are doing. People who edit in the topic area shouldn't have to waste their time on these obvious ] accounts. ] (]) 03:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I guess I didn't make my meaning all that clear. Editors should not post to AN every time they warn a brand new account about a CTOP. It's a waste of everyone's time. ] (]/]) 15:29, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::::{{re|Voorts}} It's not a brand new account, but presumably you didn't waste any of your time by actually reading my post. ] (]) 18:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::I misstated that this was a new account, but an account with five edits that hasn't edited since before you warned them isn't really something that needs an AN thread. I apologize for my tone. ] (]/]) 19:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:Now an IP {{IPlinks|2800:A4:C0F1:B700:D17E:5AEF:D26C:A9B}} has been making similar edits, changing Palestine to Israel. ] (]) 21:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)


== Hide this racist edit. ==
:Double Czech and mate! ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 16:49, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
::{{awesome}} ] 16:50, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
:::The response to your 2nd close is exactly why I do not mention the merits in a procedural close. Nothing good can ever come from it. ] - ] 18:27, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
::::I disagree, those responses would likely had come in some way or another, anyway. And it's best to be straight up about everything. Through the years, these perennial ''Czechia'' proposals always attract ]s and inexperienced users. That's par for the course. They're welcome to ] it here, but I doubt much will come of it. ] 19:11, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
{{od}} And these proposals ''always'' end with the same outcome, because of the English language being what it is — as opposed to, say, Hebrew, where I use ] pretty much exclusively, due to Hebrew being what it is. Doesn't matter that the ] will continue to state in its lead that: {{tq|most English speakers use Czech Republic in all contexts}}, therefore reaffirming the ]. Shouldn't really be much of a '']'' surprise, and yet almost certainly will continue to reoccur on the ] with some regularity. Maybe there should be <s>a FAQ combined with</s> a move moratorium to throttle these proposals a bit...? I'll leave that decision to others, however. ] 19:40, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
:Oh, there is a FAQ, which does speak to that. Silly me. ] 19:45, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
::That's fine and good, but the reason for closing the discussion has nothing to do with any of that. It was procedural only, since you need to use RM and not RFC for changing the name of an article. ] - ] 20:14, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
:::Well, obviously our reasons differ and I opt for a wider view, but I suppose it's of little moment at this juncture... ] 20:18, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
::::No opinion on which of these approaches is the correct one, but thanks to both for looking into the matter. &nbsp;&mdash;&nbsp;] (]) 00:10, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
:There have been a succession of pagename-discussion moratoria on that talkpage, which have done a good job of allowing other editorial discussions to occur. Three weeks ago (and less than two weeks before this RFCish thing was filed) I closed a separate discussion ] regarding in-article usage. These have been raised for years, with never a consensus to change and not even usually any strong new evidence. But substantial time-sink, AGF failures, ILIKEIT/IDONTLIKEIT, threats to IAR, etc. I propose to implement another moratorium...say for one year. Any objections (or other thoughts about timeframe)? ] (]) 04:47, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
::Not personally. However, it may be considered fair to allow a new RM before applying a new 1-year moratorium. ] (]) 08:34, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
:::I think Gråbergs Gråa Sång is right about what's fair. To help understand my position, I'll first say I don't think I've ever offered an opinion on this particular naming issue before and I don't plan to anytime soon. I would oppose a moratorium. Given that the RfC was improper, I don't think we should take much from it about the current state of consensus. People may have felt it would be closed given it was improper and there was no reason to waste their time reading, researching and commenting. And so I don't see a good reason for a new 1 year moratorium. Indeed in some ways it's harmful, since we've had no RM yet but technically there's been a few months when one could be started, we risk sending the message that if you want to have an RM, start one the instant the moratorium ends just in case a new one is imposed without a RM. However I'd fully support a 2-3 year moratorium if there is another proper RM, whatever the outcome. I would discourage anyone from starting an RM unless they believe there is some good reason why consensus may change, most likely a change in what sources support. Discussions about the name short of an RM which aren't likely to achieve anything can be ignored or closed as appropriate even without a moratorium. ] (]) 11:42, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
::::So you're not suggesting there should be an RM, but you are also against imposing a moratorium? But that just encourages threads of the sort we've seen here, where people continually discuss the title and even look for other ways than an RM to get it changed, yet involved editors like myself aren't allowed to shut those down because there's no moratorium in place. I think a "soft" moratorium would be best here - all title discussion should be banned, unless it takes the form of a formal RM. And if someone does start a formal RM is started, then it should be a requirement that it present substantive evidence that the situation has genuinely changed since the last RM in late 2019. An RM that simply rehashes the old arguments should be closed quickly. &nbsp;&mdash;&nbsp;] (]) 11:52, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
:::::I, actually, think we should do what I did last year with my ] RM approach for ] (then still ''Kiev''): announce a fortcoming move moratorium in advance (though, with Kyiv, the length was provisional at that point), which ended up being one year in length, but implement it ''after'' one more RM (which, for Kyiv, was the 15th RM), an RM which would be set to run the normal length. That is to say: I'm against an early closure on content grounds, as in having the closer decide on the contemporaneous or lack thereof nature of the sources brought to the table as an early-close provision. Otherwise, RMs are brief (compared to RfCs), so one week of that, followed by a one year break between any future subsequent RMs. That sounds like a sound plan to me. ] 12:47, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
::::::That Kyiv discussion is a good datapoint that common usage in English sources can change over time, and WP naming changes accordingly when that happens. ] (]) 14:26, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
:::::::And all it took there was 13 years and 15 RMs!{{=P}} ] 16:51, 8 March 2021 (UTC)


{{atop|Different project, nothing for en.wikipedia.org admins to do. OP was pointed in the right direction. --] (]) 11:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}}
== Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Institute for Social Ecology ==
Hide the racist edit summary. It says bad words and it is stereotyping Romani people.


https://rmy.wikipedia.org/Uzalutno:Contribuții/178.115.130.246 ] (]) 08:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Hello, I have been asked to relist ] after my close of the discussion based on the discussion on my ]. Can an administrator please help with undoing the close? Thank you. --] (]) 04:02, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
:{{done}} I have undone your closure and relisted the discussion. --] (]) 05:54, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
::Thank you. --] (]) 06:29, 8 March 2021 (UTC)


:That's on the Romani Misplaced Pages, we only deal with the English one here. You'll need to raise that with the admins on that project. ]] 08:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
== IPs and partial blocks ==
:Please refer to ], if there are no active RMYWP admins available. ] (]) 11:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}
There is an IP address which, intermittedly over the last 3 years, every few months, has changed one particular BLP's middle name from "Carl" to "Calzone". Aside from that contributions from that IP address have been a mix of constructive and non-constructive edits. I believe the IP address is registered to the university where the person whose biography is being vandalized works, meaning it's likely more than one person editing from that address.

I'm tempted to block that IP address from editing either the university's article or the BLP in question. However, I'm not sure the disruption rises to the level that the blocking policy envisions. Moreover, as an alum of the university, there's an argument to be made that I shouldn't act as an admin on those articles.

So I'm bringing this here for advice from other admins - would you implement a partial block in this situation? ~ '']''<sup>(]&#124;])</sup><small>]</small> 00:17, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
:A partial block sounds fine, to save constantly having to revert. ]<span style="background-color:white; color:#808080;">&amp;</span>] 00:41, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
::And I've done it, for two years. That should be long enough for them to forget this obsession. ]<span style="background-color:white; color:#808080;">&amp;</span>] 00:46, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

== ] ==

{{user5|Storm598}}

This editor has been here for three months, and in that short time has made 815 edits and accumulated a talk page full of warnings and disputes. They have been blocked once. Looking down their contributions page, a large percentage of their edits have been reverted, and I have found more which were in need of reverting, which I have done. There remain others in topic areas I'm not familiar with, so I'd like to suggest that other editors take a look at their contributions and make whatever corrections or reversions are appropriate. ] (]) 01:22, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
*Notified. ] (]) 01:25, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
::I think this is unfair. It is a completely different matter that there have been frequent disputes and that editing is wrong. If you edit the original controversial subject mainly, editorial disputes will naturally arise. However, in the future, unless I bring the source first, I will do as little dispute editing as possible.--] (]) 01:51, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
:::Storm598 has now posted on their user page: "I have a lot of headaches, so I won't edit the English Misplaced Pages for a while. (at least one month)" I still believe that an informal investigation of their editing would be worthwhile. ] (]) 03:27, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
::::<small>Headaches are a common recurring symptom of ANI flu.--''']'''-''<small>(])</small>'' 13:55, 9 March 2021 (UTC)</small>
:::::Now they've posted "retired", that the account is "deprecated" and "I don't want to open a new account for a while." If they have an account in (at this moment) good standing, under what policy would they be allowed to make a new account? Something seems fishy here -- the moment some attention is given to a 3 month old account, it gives up the ghost. What are they concerned about being found out about the account? Is a {{checkuser needed}}? ] (]) 16:51, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

== Adminship term length RFC ==

I have opened an RfC at ] to discuss adding an term length to adminship, and what to do at the end of an admin's term. ]<sup>TT</sup>(]) 10:34, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

== Review of DRV supervotes by King of Hearts ==

After an unsuccessful ], I am seeking community review of two ] closures by {{admin|King of Hearts}}:
*]
*]

'''In the ''Squad'' case,''' I closed the AfD as "delete". King of Hearts closed the DRV as ''"Overturn to redirect. Those who !voted "delete" at the AfD have failed to advance an argument as to why a redirect would not be appropriate."'' In doing so, King of Hearts failed to properly do their job as DRV closer, which is to assess whether consensus exists at DRV to overturn an AfD closure, and if so, to implement that consensus. Instead, they merely inserted their own view about how the AfD should properly have been closed, without even attempting to assess the consensus of the DRV discussion (i.e., they cast a ]). If they had done their job, they would have either found that there was no consensus to overturn the "delete" closure, or even consensus to endorse it. In both cases, the article's history would have remained deleted, consistent with the AfD consensus. This would not have prevented the later creation of the redirect from ] that now exists and with which I agree.

King of Hearts' comments indicate that they severely misunderstand applicable deletion policy if they that ''"There is no such thing as a consensus to delete at AfD per se"''. But in our policy and practice there is indeed such a thing as a "delete" consensus at AfD. It means that the history of the deleted article is suppressed. All attempts to change policy to the contrary have failed (cf. ]). That was the consensus at both the AfD and probably also at the DRV. I am concerned that King of Hearts is attempting to reintroduce such failed proposals, which do not have community consensus, by misusing the DRV process.

Similarly, '''in the ''United Airlines Flight 1175'' case,''' {{u|Black Kite}} closed the AfD as "delete", and King of Hearts closed the DRV as ''"Restore without prejudice against a new AfD."'' But in this case as well, opinions in the DRV discussion were divided and there was no consensus to overturn the "delete" closure. And again, King of Hearts did not even attempt to assess consensus but merely cast a supervote in favor of what they considered the right outcome.

As a collaborative project, Misplaced Pages works only if all, especially admins, respect consensus and the deletion process. Admins must not use their special user rights (in this case, the undelete right) to bypass this process. I therefore propose that the community overturns these DRV closures and lets another admin close these DRV discussions. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 12:04, 9 March 2021 (UTC)


== Admin prohibits to delete copyright links ==
{{hat|Notification of the participants in previous discussions}}
{{Atop|This has nothing to do with the English Misplaced Pages.--] (]) 14:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}}
*{{ping|MER-C|Dial911|MrsSnoozyTurtle|Luciapop|Cunard|Mazurkevin|SmokeyJoe|S Marshall|Andrew Davidson|SportingFlyer|Hut 8.5|Stifle|Cuoxo|Spartaz}} I'm notifying you of this discussion as participants to ] and/or its deletion review. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 12:10, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
*{{ping|Black Kite|Andy Dingley|SportingFlyer|Ansh666|Eherot|IJBall|Stormy clouds|A lad insane|Petebutt|Ahunt|Dannythewikiman|ZLEA|Mangoe|Jax 0677|Andrewgprout|Dfadden|George Ho|Dingruogu|Jetstreamer|AEMoreira042281|EnjoysButter|Champion|Davey2010|Donaldd23|DonFB|Icewhiz|Samf4u}} I'm notifying you of this discussion as participants to ]. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 12:18, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
**{{ping|Dhaluza|Cunard|Jclemens|SmokeyJoe|DGG}} I'm notifying you of this discussion as participants to the deletion review of the above. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 12:21, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
{{hab}}
*To me, the first close does indeed read as a superclose - there isn't a consensus in the DRV that that position was held, and if the closer felt it was the case, they should have !voted themselves to stress that position. I would reverse it. The second close, however, is significantly more legitimate. In base numbers, it's somewhat "no consensus", but the DRV policy strength arguments made by the the restore supporters is significantly clearer. I ''may'' have gone NC myself, but I don't believe the close was bad. ] (]) 12:22, 9 March 2021 (UTC)


In the following topic: Admin refuses to delete the following links that violate Copyright policies (links to pirated websites):
*The first close reads as a !supervote to me too - There wasn't any consensus to overturn and if KoH felt the AFD shouldn't of been closed he should of stated that in the DRV as opposed to closing/overturning. The second one - Opinions were divided and sources were also provided although a discussion then occurred over those sources. Personally it's a balance of No Consensus and Restore so don't really see a problem with that one. First DRV was wrong tho. –]<sup>]</sup> 12:44, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
*I was involved in both of these and I was surprised by the outcome of both of them, especially the Squad (app) outcome. On numbers alone, that was an endorse/decline 5, relist 2. The United Airlines 1175 discussion was closer to an endorse/restore no consensus. I really only have an issue with that because the topic falls ''far'' below our notability guidelines for aviation incidents, it's turned into an exceptionally crufty article which completely overplays the incident, and I've been criticised for taking it to AfD immediately by two !voters in the new AfD. Even given my involvement, I'd recommend overturning the Squad (app) one. I'd like the United Airlines one to be vacated, but I'm even more involved in that one. ] ''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:top;">]</span>''·''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:bottom;">]</span>'' 14:17, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
* Both look like super votes to me --] <sup>]</sup> 15:28, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
*Without commenting on the validity of them individually, there were rather a lot of challenges to King of Hearts' AfD closes last year, by amongst others experienced editors {{u|TonyBallioni}}, {{u|Premeditated Chaos|PMC}}, {{u|ArnoldReinhold}}, {{u|HighKing}}, and {{u|JayBeeEll|JBL}}: . I can see he's been inactive for long periods of time since 2014, perhaps this should be taken as a gentle suggestion to refresh himself on our current norms on closing and consensus? &ndash;&#8239;]&nbsp;<small>(])</small> 15:29, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
::That is an additional concern, Joe - the points often aren't unreasonable as such, but in quite a few (not all) of the cases linked to somewhere in this discussion would belong as !votes, not closes. ] (]) 15:37, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
*Both of the drv closes should be vacated and reclosed. KoH’s closes can be added as votes, because that is what they are. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 16:47, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
*A redirect is fine as people searching for Squad App will get to know (more) about its acquisition by Twitter. However, like {{u|Sandstein}} I also find KoH's DRV closure decision is out of line. A deleted article's history remains suppressed. The discussion here is about KoH's DRV closures and I feel they are not shy of casting Supervotes. ] (]) 17:09, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
*The first DRV doesn't look like a consensus to redirect at all. It looks more like a consensus to endorse the original close - I see there is an attribution/copyright issue but the endorsers clearly considered that aspect. Ditto on the second DRV - it's clear that not everybody agrees that the new sources justify restoration, one could call that a consensus to endorse or no consensus but it's not a consensus to restore, really. ] (]) 17:11, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
* Both of them are supervotes, especially the first one. I closed the Flight 1175 one and there was no other way it ''could'' be closed - if significant information has since come to light the correct close would be "Endorse but allow recreation". I see that the subsequent AfD is turning into a trainwreck as well (]) as ] ones often do. ] 17:30, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
*If I were to have voted myself in either the initial discussion or the DRV for the Squad case, I would have voted to either turn to a redirect or to relist the original AFD debate. ''That being said'', I would not have closed the discussion as KoH did. As an admin, if we have our own opinion on the discussion at hand, we should vote and not close the discussion ourselves. There's nothing wrong with thinking the consensus was incorrect, and to vote accordingly. There is something wrong with closing a discussion against consensus. I would overturn that one. The second one, on the UAL Flight 1175, it's close enough to the border that it's within range of closing either way; I think that one is okay as it. --]] 17:45, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
*'''Comment''': Perhaps I should not have used the word "overturn" to describe the result of the ] DRV. However, the fact of the matter is that consensus is not required to create a redirect at a previously deleted page, or to restore the history under a redirect (assuming that the deletion was not for content-related violations). As neither the AfD nor the DRV supports a consensus that the redirect is inappropriate, the correct course of action is to allow the redirect. But why so much fuss over the ] rather than the end result, which Sandstein admits would have been the same? -- ]]]] 18:21, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
*:Under what policy does the creation of a redirect nullify the previous AfD deletion of earlier revisions? You state that "consensus is not required" for such an undeletion, but ] doesn't support this claim (nor does ], which refers to UDP). Unilaterally overturning a consensus-based and consensus-endorsed deletion should not be done lightly and needs a much better reason than a claim that "consensus is not required" without anything to back this up. ] (]) 18:32, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
*::It looks like this practice is ], but no one has thought to add it to an official policy page. It might be worth reopening this discussion. -- ]]]] 18:46, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
*:::You have more people here in this discussion saying that it ''isn't'' OK than was in that discussion from 8 years ago. Apparently, consensus has changed. --]] 18:54, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
*::::So let's open an RfC to clarify the policy then. I've been following that interpretation since there has not been any consensus since to overturn it, but let's decide as a community what the right interpretation is once and for all and enshrine it in policy. I'm happy to follow whatever is decided going forward. -- ]]]] 18:57, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
*:::::{{ec}} I don't think I ever said you weren't doing what you thought to be correct; but it seems clear that the practice is not well supported. Policy documents practice and does not determine it, and you have a LOT of very experienced admins here saying that one should not be restoring an article history of a deleted article; we don't have any written policy that even says you should be doing so, and you've pointed to an 8-year-old discussion with minimal participation that was not documented anywhere obvious. Based on the fact that basically no one knew such a policy existed, except you and the few people that participated in the discussion, it wasn't documented anywhere, and that enough admins clearly don't see it as practice, it would be advisable to stop doing it. Of course, if we need to have an entire RFC just to force one admin to stop doing something no one else does, we can, but do we need to??? --]] 19:14, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
*::::::Are they saying that because this is what they believe policy to be, or what they believe policy should be? It appears that I am outnumbered on the first front, but I think it is a rather sensible thing to allow restoration of non-sensitive content underneath an existing page (whether article or redirect) and it's worth a discussion to see where the community stands on the merits of the issue, i.e. I think they might be amenable on the second front. But either way, it enshrines it in policy so that there will be no more disagreements in interpretation. -- ]]]] 19:21, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
*:::::::The 2015 RfC ] was at ] and was widely attended and has not been overturned by a subsequent RfC. There was a strong consensus at the RfC to preserve an article's history when it is converted to a redirect. ] (]) 19:47, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
*:::That discussion is irrelevant, because it's about history-only restores. You recreated the redirect yourself (with an obvious supervote which re-litigated the AfD, which isn't allowed) and unnecessarily restored the history with it, which practically no-one asked for. Even if that had not been the case, it was a seven-year old discussion at a backwater page in which only three people supported, and the relevant question to this issue ("does this include history under redirects?") went unanswered. ]
*::::So let's have the discussion then. I followed what I believed was a reasonable interpretation of policy, and apparently there is disagreement here. So let's clarify it and establish a policy for history undeletion for the future. -- ]]]] 19:20, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
*:{{u|King of Hearts}}, the end result is not the same. If you had correctly closed the DRV as "no consensus" or "endorse", and then created a redirect over the deleted article, there would have been no problem. The problem is that (a) you closed a DRV discussion contrary to policy by imposing your own preference and ignoring the discussion's consensus, and (b) misused your administrator privileges to undelete a page's history that according to policy and the outcome of both the AfD and DRV ought to have remained deleted. This is a matter of administrator misconduct if we get down to it, and you should take it much more seriously. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 18:44, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
*::I agree with Sandstein. I feel like the entire point of the discussion was missed. That DRV asked a very specific question which had everything to do with history and attribution. I don't believe anyone would have had a problem with going in and creating a fresh redirect. ] ''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:top;">]</span>''·''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:bottom;">]</span>'' 19:38, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
*:{{ec}} Creating a new redirect (with no history) would be plausibly allowed even with an AFD, as the prior AFD did not delete a redirect, and policy only says that creating a new article with substantially the same content; a redirect is a different thing entirely. Arguably, deletion is ''primarily'' about removing an article history from public view, so recreating a history ''to turn it into a redirect'' is clearly against policy. But creating a redirect without undeleting is not overturning the AFD in this instance. --]] 18:45, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
As I see it, a closer can always consider a compromise close , even if one had not been previously suggested. I If I thought an article ought to be deled and it were kept as a redirect or a merge, I would normally see no reaaon to challenge it. If I wanted it as a full article, I probably would accept it also, and try to build up the article again if possible. In nominating, if I think somethin isn't even worth a redirect or a merge, I say so. If someone comes up wirth a better idea than mine, I dont; call it a supervote. There sems to be a great deal of concern about the details of copyright. There are oither ways of indicating attribution than retainingthe edits----such as apending a list of the other editors in a note.''']''' (]) 19:59, 9 March 2021 (UTC)


*
*Both of King of Hearts' closes correctly assessed the strengths of the DRV participants' arguments.<p>King of Hearts correctly assessed the consensus at ]. King of Hearts followed the global consensus on the matter. Both the policy ] and the 2015 RfC ] support King of Hearts' close. The 2015 RfC was at ] and was widely attended and has not been overturned by a subsequent RfC. There was a strong consensus at the RfC to preserve an article's history when it is converted to a redirect. From ], "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale."<p>Before creating the AfD, AfD nominator {{user|MER-C}} ] to ] with the history preserved under the redirect. The redirect was undone, after which MER-C took the article to AfD. Had the redirect not been reverted, ] would currently exist as a redirect with the history preserved. No editor at ] explained why the page's history should have been deleted. Since the article's history did not contain BLP or copyright violations, the policy and the global consensus support its restoration.<p>] (]) 19:47, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
*


Refers to "Community discussion", when the latest discussion about the page contents happened on 2008 and simple google is available to see which links are pirated and which are not. ] (]) 14:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Comment:''' After Sandstein closed ] as "delete", I could have requested at ] that ] be moved to my userspace or ]. Would that request have been denied? On what basis would the request have been denied? Requests to draftify are routinely granted at ] for improvements or for use in other articles. From ] (my bolding): <blockquote>This page is also intended to serve as a central location to request that deleted content be ], restored as a ] or emailed to you so the content can be improved upon prior to re-insertion into the mainspace, or '''used elsewhere''' (you may also make a request directly to one of the administrators listed ]). This means that content deleted ''after discussion''—at ], ], or ] among other ]—may in some cases be provided to you, but such ''controversial'' page deletions will ''not'' be overturned through this process.</blockquote> Deletion on the basis of notability (and no other reason) does not bar the article's content from being "used elsewhere". After completing a merge of the article's content to ], I would have then redirected the draft to the list. I did not take that approach since it's preferable to have the history be under the mainspace title instead of the draft title.<p>] (]) 19:47, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
{{Abot}}


== 96.230.143.43 ==
*King of Hearts' close of ] accurately assessed the consensus. ] says: "Deletion review may be used: 3. if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page". The DRV nominator and DRV participants presented "significant new information". Five DRV participants (Dhaluza, Cunard, Jclemens, SmokeyJoe, and DGG) supported restoring the article or allowing recreation. Two DRV participants (SportingFlyer and Hut 8.5) did not support restoring the article or allowing recreation. Closing as "Restore without prejudice against a new AfD" is a reasonable assessment of the consensus.<p>] (]) 19:47, 9 March 2021 (UTC)


This user is a frequent vandal on the page ]. I am requesting a block. ] (]) 16:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
* {{u|Cunard}} The consensus at ] was in answer to the question "Should our standard practice be to delete article histories and contributions when a small article is converted into a redirect to a larger article?". The Squad AfD was not closed as redirect - it was closed as Delete, so that RfC is irrelevant. The purpose of DRV is not to re-litigate an AfD, it is to determine whether it was closed properly in the first place, which that one was. Yes, of course you could have asked for the article to be ]ed to you at that point, but that's not relevant either to a discussion about KoH's DRV close, which is something we appear to be getting off the point of. ] 20:55, 9 March 2021 (UTC)


:Blocked. In the future, please use ]. <b>]</b><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 16:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
== UAA backlog ==
::Ah, very sorry. ] (]) 17:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)


== StoneX Group Inc. ==
Could someone please take a swipe at UAA? There are over 40 open reports (not counting bot reports), and many of them are straightforward.--''']'''<span style="background-color: yellow; color: black">&nbsp;(])</span> 15:44, 9 March 2021 (UTC)


I’m concerned about the page at ]
== Updated Request for Termination of IBAN ==
*{{user5|Alansohn}}
*{{user5|Rusf10}}
*


There are disclosed COI paid edits but the main problem I’m highlighting here is that the subject company appears to see that they have ownership of the page to the extent of adding obviously inappropriate stuff, see my most recent edit to remove it. I’m not sure of the correct procedure and was wondering if an admin could possibly have a polite word with those editors? Thanks. ] (]) 17:06, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
As listed at ], I am currently under an IBAN originally established almost three years ago and made permanent more than two-and-a-half years ago. A previous request to end the IBAN made a year ago was rejected (). I have carefully avoided any interaction with the other editor since the IBAN was extended and seen little editing by the other editor in question in articles on my watchlist equivalent, which has made it that much less likely that any issue would arise in the future. I have no intention whatsoever of interacting with the editor in question; the purpose of this request is to eliminate the possibility that an inadvertent crossing of paths could trigger a violation of the IBAN and another block. I request community support for termination of this one-way IBAN. ] (]) 17:43, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
:*The other editor involved is Rusf10. ] (]) 20:34, 9 March 2021 (UTC) :Have you tried discussing this with the COI editor? ] (]/]) 20:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:*Looking at the Editor Interaction Analyzer report, it seems as if Alansohn was the first actor in 2 of the 3 interactions that were relatively close together (5 hours, 7 days and 16 days), and the one in which he was the second actor (7 days on ]), Alansohn's edit, restoring categories to a redirect, was not materially related to Rusf10's edit, which was to nominate the article for deletion. , . I see no instances in which Alansohn has violated his IBAN. ] (]) 20:50, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
:*{{u|Alansohn}} It appears to me that the link you provided in your second sentence was not to the discussion from last year about lifting the IBAN, it was to the making of the IBAN to be permanent from 2 1/2 years ago (9 August 2018). ] (]) 20:53, 9 March 2021 (UTC)


== Permissions Removal ==
== Please delete the Bangladeshi term from Banerjee. Bangladesh is a different muslim majority country I believe. ==
{{atop|result=Block evading user that ] not to modify direct quotes. <b>] ]</b> 21:23, 9 March 2021 (UTC)}}
Please delete the Bangladeshi term from Banerjee. Bangladesh is a different muslim majority country I believe. I don't like the term of Bangladeshi. It should be from West Bengal, India. ] (]) 20:10, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
:"Bangladeshi" refers to someone or something from the independent country of ], formerly ]. "]", "Bengalee", or "Bengalese" refers to someone from the Bengal region of South Asia, which includes both India and Bangladesh, or someone of the Bengali ethnic group. "]" is "a surname of Brahmins originating from the Bengal region of the '''''Indian subcontinent'''''", which '''''includes''''' Bangladesh.{{pb}}In your editing of ], you are attempting to change the wording of a '''''direct quote'''''. Don't do that.{{pb}}] has been ECP'd. ] (]) 20:30, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
{{abottom}}


Hello, please remove my rollback and pending changes review permissions. Rollback is redundant because I have global rollback and I do not use the reviewer rights enough to warrant keeping them. Thank you! ] (]) 20:03, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
== Request to restore of all revoked permission by ] done by using ] ==


:Done. Thank you. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 20:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
* {{rfplinks|1=Amkgp}}
Yesterday most of the permissions were removed after decline at citing myself as an untrusty user. For your reference and clarity, I am enclosing links to my all block discussion. See and . I (was) an active new page patroller (you can verify from my contributions ]) and AfC reviewer (See ] and also), (was) an active page mover (especially use it in draftify of undersourced new articles), an active pending changes reviewer and file mover (in fact yesterday I helped to reduce a backlog and you can see was granted and a brief discussion took place ] already). Beside these I used to help at ] in making prep sets. I have also helped to promote ] and ] to GA status. I am also a ] host and help editors when ever I am able to help. I also help in copyright file tagging at commons when I get a chance. See ]. I was really socked to see that I was stripped off most privileges that I earned after spending long time here in en-wiki through positive contributions and trust only. I tried to resolve with revoking admin {{np|Nick}} but it seems to go nowhere. Please see the entire conversation below. In one of the replies the revoking admin says {{tq|I do trust them to deal with obvious vandalism correctly, and their track record there is not in question}} but marks me an unreliable user. Till date I never misused any of the tools nor have tried to harm the Misplaced Pages project itself. I have always taken Misplaced Pages editing seriously. I therefore kindly request for restoration of all the removed rights, so that I can contribute as I was doing before. Thank you.
{{moved from|]|— ] ] 20:48, 9 March 2021 (UTC)}}

Latest revision as of 21:18, 9 January 2025

Notices of interest to administrators
Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles,
content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators. Shortcuts

    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)

    Start a new discussion

    Open tasks

    Centralized discussion
    Noticeboard archives
    Administrators' (archives, search)
    349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358
    359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368
    Incidents (archives, search)
    1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165
    1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175
    Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
    472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481
    482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491
    Arbitration enforcement (archives)
    328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337
    338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347
    Other links
    XFD backlog
    V Oct Nov Dec Jan Total
    CfD 0 0 22 20 42
    TfD 0 0 0 1 1
    MfD 0 0 0 0 0
    FfD 0 0 7 5 12
    RfD 0 0 39 10 49
    AfD 0 0 0 0 0


    Sander.v.Ginkel unblock request

    The following is copied from User talk:Sander.v.Ginkel#Unblock_request on behalf of Sander.v.Ginkel:

    I have made serious mistakes. I regret it and say sorry for it. I fully understand why I have been blocked. My biggest mistake that I copied-pasted content from articles to other articles, that led to a BLP violation. I have also misused other accounts as suckpuppets: User:SportsOlympic and User:MFriedman (note that the two other accounts –- User:Dilliedillie and User:Vaintrain -- at Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Sander.v.Ginkel was not me. ) In addition, my work was too focused on quantity, rather than quality. I apologize to those who had to do some cleaning up for me.

    Whay do I want to come back? And do I deserve it? I can show that I can make constructive content. I made some edits and created pages under the IP address 82.174.61.58, that was not allowed; and was blocked. It is not good that I made edits under an IP address, but I appreciated that some users (User:Tamzin, User:Xoak, User:Ingenuity) stated they liked the content I created and/or that they offer the opportunity to have me back (see at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Sander.v.Ginkel/Archive). I made the same mistakes on the Dutch Misplaced Pages (where I misused the same accounts). At this Misplaced Pages I bot back my account and I am editing the Wikipeida I’m also editing at simple.wikipedia.org (see User:SportsOlympic). I have created over 900 pages (see here), (1 page being deleted). I like to create articles from historic work on old sources, for instance simple:Annie van de Blankevoort, simple:1928 Belgium–Netherlands women's athletics competition, simple:Julia Beelaerts van Blokland, simple:Esther Bekkers-Lopes Cardozo or the event simple:Water polo at the 1922 Women's Olympiad that is barely mentioned at the English 1922 Women's Olympiad. Around 100 pages have been (literally) copied to the English Misplaced Pages by several users. I'm also editing Wikidata, see here and here when I forgot to log in.

    However, as I have learned from it, I will never use multiple accounts anymore and adding controversial content without doing a proper fact-check. I will always listen to users, be constructive and be friendly. I will make sure you will not regret giving me my account back. I would like to work under the account user:SportsOlympic.

    Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 18:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

    Support unbanning and unblocking per WP:SO. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:31, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Quoting my SPI comment in 2022:

      I was torn on this. The IP does not seem to be creating the sort of low-quality BLP stubs that SportsOlympic was. If this were "just" a case of block evasion, I'm not sure I could justify a block of the IP as preventative of any disruption, and would be inclined to either ignore it or block but offer a non-OFFER unblock to the main account. However, Sander.v.Ginkel is banned, and under the SportsOlympic account has caused significant disruption just six months ago. Evading a ban is an inherent harm, as it undercuts the community's ability to self-govern. Furthermore, it would be unfair to the community to allow someone to contribute content, particularly in a DS area as much of the IP's recent edits have been, without the community being on-notice of their history of significant content issues. (And there is still troubling content like Draft:Krupets.) I thus feel I would be defying the mandate the community has given me as an admin if I did anything but block here. ... FWIW, Sander, I could see myself supporting an OFFER unban down the line, although I'd recommend a year away rather than six months.

      That sentiment is what I eventually wrote down at User:Tamzin/Adverse possession unblock, which mentions the same principles being relevant in unban discussions. And now that this is before the community, with even more time having passed, I have no problem unbanning: The post-ban edits, while problematic in that they were sockpuppetry, do show evidence that Sander has learned from his mistakes, and thus a ban no longer serves a preventative purpose. Looking back at the one hesitation I mentioned above, I think my concern was that it was an ECR violation that seemed credulous of a pro-Russian narrative; but if there's no evidence of that being part of any POV-pushing, then I don't see it as an obstacle to unbanning. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 18:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Support per above.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
      Endorse one account proviso. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
    • I'm a little bit concerned by the sockpuppetry returning earlier this year: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Sander.v.Ginkel/Archive#18 April 2024. However, that is over 6 months ago. I would Support with the obvious proviso that the user be limited to 1 account and that IP editing may be scrutinized for evidence of WP:LOUTSOCK. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:16, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Support with provisions per above. Worth keeping a close eye on, but they seem to have understood the problems with their behavior and improved upon it. The Kip 07:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Support I've previously spoken in favor of the subject as well. X (talk) 09:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Oppose. "My biggest mistake that I copied-pasted content from articles to other articles, that led to a BLP violation. " That wasn't the biggest mistake by far. You made extremely negative claims about sportspeople based on internet rumors. Apart from this, the first article I checked on simple, , is way too close paraphrasing of the source. This has very sloppy writing, "He started his business alone 1980 built so his horse stable "Hexagon" in Schore. " is just nonsense. Copyvio/close paraphrasing seems to be a recurring problem, this has e.g. "Zwaanswijk is regarded as one of the most respected post-World War II visual artists of Haarlem and his work had a profound influence on the local art scene." where the source has "Piet Zwaanswijk was een van de meest gerespecteerde na-oorlogse beeldend kunstenaars van Haarlem. Zijn werk had een diepe invloed op de lokale kunstscene". I don't get the impression that the earlier issues have disappeared. Fram (talk) 11:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Support User seems to have recognized what he did wrong, has edited constructively off enwiki. JayCubby 18:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Weak Support, the crux of the issue was three-fold: creation of low-quality sports stubs (including what Fram said), persistent IDHT when asked to fix them, and sockpuppetry. I recall I identified the SportsOlympic sock in a tangential ANI thread a couple of years ago. It appears he has edited constructively elsewhere. I would like to see a commitment to one-account-only and a commitment respond civilly and collaboratively when criticized. Jip Orlando (talk) 15:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Support. Completely support an unblock; see my comment here when his IP was blocked in April. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Oppose. Sander and his socks created literally thousands of poorly-written and/or potentially-copyvio pages on (very frequently) non-notable sports topics. I don't see evidence in his Simple Wiki contribs that his writing has improved, and for someone with his history of non-notable subject choices I would want to see clear evidence that these creations are supported by WP:SUSTAINED, non-routine, IRS SIGCOV. Articles like this may well be on notable competitions, but with content like On 20 March the Women's Fencing Club gave an assaut, in honor of the visit of the Dutch team. As seen as an exceptional, mr. de Vos was a the only man allowed to visit the women's club., and all sources being from 20 or 21 March 1911, we can be confident that verifying and rewriting the mangled translations and searching for continued coverage will be a huge pain for other editors. And going from the most recent en.wp AfD participation I'd also anticipate the same combativeness and time wasted explaining P&Gs to him in that area as well. Given the volume of his creations, I don't think it is fair to foist all the extra work that would come with overturning the ban onto other editors without a much more thorough evaluation of his Simple Wiki contribution quality. JoelleJay (talk) 02:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Currently oppose; open to a change of view if some explanation and assurances are given with regard to the points Fram raises. There is no point in unblocking a problematic editor if it appears that they may well continue to cause issues for the community ~ Lindsay 12:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Support but keep an eye on contributions off ENWP. Ahri Boy (talk) 17:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
      @Ahri Boy: Not sure we are concerned with contribs off ENWP. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
      He might appeal on Commons later if the appeal here is successful, so there would be a cooldown before doing there. Ahri Boy (talk) 01:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Oppose per Fram on close paraphrasing, JoelleJay on sourcing/writing quality, and my own observations on English-language proficiency (I see very recent sentences like "Next as working for magazines he also contributed to book"). At an absolute minimum I would need a restriction on article creation (to prevent the low-quality mass creation issues from recurring), but these issues would be a problem in other areas too. I think continuing to contribute to simple-wiki and nl-wiki would be the best way forward. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      He was once blocked on NLWP for the same sockpuppetry as here before. I don't even know that he may be offered SO there. Ahri Boy (talk) 10:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      See . Extraordinary Writ (talk) 10:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Oppose. Like Fram, JoelleJay, and Extraordinary Writ, I have concerns about their competence with regards to copyright, notability, and simple prose writing. I think an unblock is likely to create a timesink for the community, who will be forced to tie one eye up watching both of his hands. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Come on – it's been nearly seven years since the ban – why can't we give another chance? His articles from when he was an IP seemed quite good (and much different from stubs which seem to have been the problem), from what I remember (although they've since been G5'd). BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      S.v.G. needs to be reevaluated. He needs to clarify that the purpose of return is genuine, constructive, and one account only. He hasn't made any contributions to Commons because he was blocked. Ahri Boy (talk) 19:55, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      I think saying that I will never use multiple accounts anymore and that he wants to make constructive content would indicate that the purpose of return is genuine, constructive, and one account only. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      For the meantime, he should stay at Simple and NLWP for another six months to make sure no suspicions will be made before appealing under SO. Ahri Boy (talk) 20:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      But it's only been three years since he was mass-creating non-notable stubs with BLP violations and bludgeoning AfDs with his SportsOlympic sock. He then edited extensively as an IP, got banned for 18 months, restarted within two weeks of that ban ending, and made another 1000+ edits until his latest IP ban in spring 2024. After which he immediately invoked the (laxer) equivalent of the SO on nl.wp... JoelleJay (talk) 21:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      And he admits that he was too focused on quantity, rather than quality, apologized repeatedly, and his creations as an IP showed that he was no longer focused on mass-creating non-notable stubs. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Support With the above mentioned provisions. Seems like a genuine, good faith, attempt to start over. Frank Anchor 04:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Support - Like a lot of behavioral issues on this site, I think it all stems back to the general public seeing this site as an all-inclusive encyclopedia and some users here seeing the site as a celebrity encyclopedia. If the user becomes a problem, action can be taken again. Let's see how it goes. KatoKungLee (talk) 20:03, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Oppose per Fram and PMC. —Compassionate727  18:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Question: Is SvG the same person as Slowking4? There has been an odd connection between the two in the past; I think it was first noted by Dirk Beetstra. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Support. This appears to be a good-faith attempt at a return, and looking through the commentary here I don't see evidence to suggest continuing the ban and block are preventative. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose basically per JoelleJay, particularly the evidence that their MASSCREATE/socking/evading behaviour was carrying on as recently as spring 2024. If/When they return, it should be with the requirement that all their articles have to go through AFC and that they won't get WP:AUTOPATROLLED without a substantive discussion (i.e., no automatic conferring of autopatrolled - they have to request it and disclose why this restriction is in place when doing so). FOARP (talk) 16:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

    Spider-Man: Beyond the Spider-Verse - draft article about a future film seems to be a long-term draft

    I have not come across a situation like Draft:Spider-Man: Beyond the Spider-Verse before. Maybe this is fairly common and I have just missed it.

    It is a draft article about a film that can not have an article, per WP:NFF. I think the idea is that there is some valuable content there and it would be a shame to delete it when it seems likely that the film will enter final animation and voice recording in the next year or so.

    The problem is that it is attracting the sort of speculative edits from IPs that we want to avoid. Both on the draft and the talk page.

    I became aware of this because there is a request at WP:RPPI to EC-protect the talk page. But it makes me think we should have some kind of protection for the draft too. But I can see arguments for weaker than ECP (speculation is just by IPs) and for stronger... like... why are people editing it anyway? Maybe there are reasons I am not aware of.

    Is anyone more familiar with how we got here? Anyone got any arguments for or against applying semi, EC or full protection to the draft and its talk page?

    Edit: Anyone got any thoughts on the concept of having a draft article for a film that doesn't meet WP:NFF?

    Yaris678 (talk) 00:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

    As far as I'm aware, articles on films are allowed so long as principal photography has occurred (principal animation in this case, I guess?). That has clearly happened for this film, even if they are having to scrap and re-write things. And notability is certainly not in question, so having an article is fully within the policy rules. If there are harmful edits happening, then semi-protection seems like a normal response. Silverseren 00:43, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    People say that on the draft's talk page every so often and get rebuffed. Maybe you can be more persuasive, but the general argument is the existing animation was created for "Spider-Man: Across The Spider-Verse" before it was split into two films and no "final animation" has begun on this film. Yaris678 (talk) 01:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    Are they basing that claim on any reliable source as evidence? Since what exists in that draft currently with reliable sources clearly indicates work has started. Silverseren 01:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    Hi. I'm the editor who has requested the protection for this draft. Per WP:NFF, final animation or voice recording are the requirement to move a film draft to the mainspace. Final animation is different from standard reels being produced, which as sourced, is currently what this film has produced while no voice recording has occurred. It seems to still be very early in development, and much of the earlier work when this was the second part was reportedly scrapped (as sourced in the draft). I do not believe the mainspace viability ought to be discussed here as that is more for the draft. As for the protection request, it appears to be the same person making these disruptive comments which have become unnecessarily excessive and are detracting from the content of the draft itself. I requested protection (initially as ECP though semi works for the talk) because these comments have not benefitted any actual constructive progress and have largely ranged from the IPs attempting to enforce their own opinions about the delays and trying to remove sources they don't like, which has been ongoing since the end of October. As a draft, not many other editors are editing this, so it becomes quite unrelenting and tiresome to deal with these repeated disruptions. Glad to see this has garnered more attention. Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    Per WP:NFF, final animation or voice recording are the requirement to move a film draft to the mainspace ...I'm pretty sure that BtSV meets WP:GNG already, regardless of the state of production, and that should be the main factor. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:49, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    I have no problem with the draft being moved, this is just not the normal route to do so and typically NFF is followed for film articles, but I digress. I do caution that this article could be susceptible to further unconstructive comments in the mainspace, but that is a price I'm willing to handle. I can make the move as needed, no worries, I am primarily concerned about these type of comments continuing and if any protection is necessary to prevent or temporarily postpone them from continuing. Trailblazer101 (talk) 05:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    There doesn't appear to be enough disruption to the draft page to justify protection at this point. Draft talk definitely should get semi-protection. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:45, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    Really? That seems excessive for a few FOURMy IP comments (likely from the same person). If they continue with it, block the IP, maybe. Protecting talk pages should really be a last resort. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    Some people overly use NFF to block any film article that has not confirmed start to production, which is really a bad black/white approach. Most films prior to production are not notable or may not even happen when they are first hinted at, and thus it is absolutely appropriate to use NFF to hold back on a standalone until production starts. But then you have some exceptional cases like this (the 3rd of the animated Spider-Man movies that have earned a massive amount of money and praise, with a lot of attention already given to the film even before production) as well as my own experience with Akira (planned film) which deals with a film that has numerous delays and other incidents that its still nowhere close to production, but its journey that way is readily sourced. NFF should not be used to block creation of articles on films that have this much detail about the work that is otherwise suitable by notability guidelines. For this specific article on the Spider-man film, I see no reason why it could not be in main space at this point as to avoid the whole draft problem. — Masem (t) 05:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    Yeah, there is a point to be made that even if this final film somehow never finished production, it would still be notable because of the coverage of its attempted production history. There's several films (and video games, among other cultural apocrypha) that meet that notability requirement, even without ever actually having been completed and released to the public. Silverseren 05:36, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    Indeed, a number of aborted films projects are notable exactly because they wound up in development hell. Jodorowsky's Dune is a film about my personal favorite never-got-made film. El Beeblerino 02:59, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

    Noting here that Trailblazer101 moved the article from draft space to main space at 22:44, based on the discussion here and WP:GNG. I have not seen any objections to that move since it was done. I have not seen any more speculative or forumy edits recently. There is a good chance they will come back, but if they come back in a serious number the article and/or talk page can be given an appropriate level of protection at that point, or, if the responsible IPs/accounts can be blocked. I think it is probably time to close this discussion. Yaris678 (talk) 10:56, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

    The IP has made three unconstructive and uncivil comments on the talk today (see this diff, and they show no signs of stopping. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:03, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    I have blocked that IP. I note that it is possible that some of the other IPs could be the same users and so will block other IPs and/or apply semi-protection if this continues (or encourage others to do the same if I am away from my computer). Yaris678 (talk) 11:51, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Anyone got any thoughts on the concept of having a draft article for a film that doesn't meet WP:NFF? Using draftspace to incubate articles on subjects that are not yet notable but almost certainly will be—unreleased films, upcoming elections, sports events, the next in an "X by year" series, and so on—is a common practice and has been as long as I can remember. As such it's listed at WP:DRAFTREASON. – Joe (talk) 12:04, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

    I think it makes sense to archive all threads in Talk:Spider-Man: Beyond the Spider-Verse. They are all either forumy or else asking when the page can be moved to article space, which is no longer relevant since it is in article space. Yaris678 (talk) 20:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

    I've updated the archive bot on that talk age to act on 1 month old threads. Should get rid of half of the ones on there when it runs next and the rest will follow soon enough. I've always thought 6 months was way too long of a default archive policy. Silverseren 20:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

    43.249.196.179 (again)

    See their previous thread here, Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1174#User:Augmented Seventh. Continuing to disrupt and remove categories without explanation, decided to gravedance on my page after restoring edits without any talk page discussion, and has now moved onto disrupting user sandboxes and user pages by removing categories without said user's permission, calling my reversions 'vindicitive' and now considering me their personal 'nemesis' because they don't understand why they're being reverted. Nate • (chatter) 21:16, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

    User:MrSchimpf is not familiar with some of the WP policies and guidelines especially WP:UOWN and WP:CAT. Also, his obfuscated username is somewhat fustration and is not conducive to efficient editing. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 21:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    Special:Diff/1266485663: Editing user pages has no 'hard policy' prohibition, as this is a wiki. 'End of discussion', seriously? Also see WP:NOBAN. Then, Category:Wikipedians is a container category, which clearly says it should only contain subcategories. Even I don't understand why they're being reverted. -- zzuuzz 22:08, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    User:MrSchimpf seems to be unaware of many of the WP polices and guidelines. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 08:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    I've been here nineteen years so obviously I do and I apologize if as mentioned I'm more aggressive about userspace being in control of the user themselves. That said I'm no longer engaging with you or any of your edits as you're now refusing to drop the stick and trying to troll some kind of response out of me (and doing the same for Liz, who has the patience of a saint), which you won't get. Understand our guidelines or get blocked. If anyone uninvolved would like to close this, please do so. Nate • (chatter) 17:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    Length of time on WP is not a measure of how familiar an editor is with policy and guidelines. Your previous comments show that you are unfamiliar with some of them, but to be fair, it is impossible to know all of them. There are a lot of editors that do not know a lot of the policies and guidelines. THere are content disputes and corrections and reverts happening all the time because of inexperienced editors.
    I am not trolling. I just want WP to be much better than it currently is. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 19:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    Adressing that final point, I have made a proposal about Category:Wikipedians to either remove the container banner tag or give special sanction to empty user pages from that main category. Tule-hog (talk) 21:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    Category:Wikipedians is at a level of the hierarchy that there should be nothing in it, which is why it is a container category. The contents of it have been added by editors who do not understand how WP works and do not realise that it is a container category. You proposal is not needed. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 22:07, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    Comment: WP:USERNOCAT was cited in this edit (a sandbox used for drafting a larger edit needing discussion, where categories were copied along with the rest of the article's content). (Category:Wikipedians is mentioned explicitly in that guideline.) Tule-hog (talk) 02:49, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
    Whatever the case, user sandbox space is sacred and unless you have permission to edit there, you don't touch them, that's an unwritten rule. Mathglot certainly didn't appreciate it. That's the main issue here and if I was wrong on the cats so be it, but they should not be playing in sandboxes they shouldn't be in. Nate • (chatter) 02:54, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
    Just to clarify: I have no qualms about others making improvements to pages in my users space—which belong to the community and are not "mine"—as long as they are improvements. That said, IP's edits in my userspace look like vandalism to me. Mathglot (talk) 03:04, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
    User namespace is not "sacred". And if there is an unwrittten rule then it is not a rule that needed to be adhered to. Also WP:BOLD. To be a good editor it is important to be familiar with policis and guidelines. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 08:03, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
    It was not a "gravedance". I was pointing out to you that other editors dont agree with you edits. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 09:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

    I only just noticed this AN discussion, after placing this warning at User talk:43.249.196.179 about vandalizing a Draft template in my user space. Their edits seem somehow to be related to categories, but near as I can guess from their edit summary here, they also had some inscrutable complaint about me using my userspace as "social media". Maybe interested parties here will understand what they are talking about, because I certainly don't. As of this point, I cannot tell if they are well-meaning, but highly misinformed and uncomprehending, or if they are simply trolling everyone. I suspect the latter, but am willing to be proved wrong, especially if enceforth they stick to guidelines and talk things out, instead of ignoring advice given previously and edit-warring. Mathglot (talk) 03:00, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

    Okay, now I am sure: see this edit at my Talk page, quickly reverted by Remsense while I was in the process of reverting it. This is clearly intentional, malicious, vandalism, as well as retaliation. Therefore, I propose an indefinite block on 43.249.196.179 (talk · contribs) as it is a vandalism-only account. Mathglot (talk) 03:13, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
    I haven't looked into this editor's edits but we don't indefinitely block IP editors as the IP account can easily be assigned to a different user. But they can receive longtime blocks on the order of months or years. Liz 04:33, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
    You are looking at two different IP addresses. Getting things right is important. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 07:53, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

    Incivility at Talk:Azerbaijan Airlines Flight 8243

    @Dreameditsbrooklyn and to a lesser extent @Aviationwikiflight have been bickering in the talk page for a while now, and the reply chains are so long that they go off my phone's screen. DEB in particular has been noticeably passive aggressive in their comments, such as these diffs at me, this diff at AWF, and this diff at User:Awdqmb. Is this actionable? guninvalid (talk) 01:57, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

    This looks to me like it's covered by WP:ARBEE. Animal lover |666| 02:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    I have yet to dig through the very length discussions, but on the surface I can say that I'm glad to see it not turning into much of an edit war in the article itself, and remaining mostly on the talk page. Infact the only person who breached 2R's was someone you didn't mention, and interestingly was never warned, but I placed a soft warning on their talk page. As far as the specific diffs provided, I don't see anything in there which is all that problematic, unless you're deeply intrenched in the issue. I would proffer is that if someone says, in it's entirety I am stating a fact. and you take offence to that, then you might need to back away from the discussion for a few days. TiggerJay (talk) 02:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    "...then you might need to back away from the discussion for a few days". You're probably right about that. guninvalid (talk) 02:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    This seems entirely unnecessary. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 03:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    Can you elaborate on which aspect of this you are referring to that you believe is unnecessary? TiggerJay (talk) 03:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    By this, I mean bringing the issue to ANI. If I owe anyone an apology, I stand ready to give it, but @Guninvalid hasn't really been involved in the discussion until very recently and has already escalated it here. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 03:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    It doesn't matter how much someone has been involved in a discussion. If there's misconduct that's not clearly going to get resolved on its own (which I'm not confident saying either way here), then it's a public service, even a responsibility, for an editor to report it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Dreameditsbrooklyn you can see my initial assessment of the situation above. However, I will say uninvolved editors are welcome to bring valid concerns to ANI. It is often far more helpful when someone outside of the situation brings it up here as it ends up being far more neutral. I also would suggest that you might also be too involved right now and need to back away for a few days. The biggest reason is that I believe you read right past Animal lover's and my response which basically didn't find you doing anything wrong. I suggest that a cooling off period might be good for you as well. Not because you're currently doing anything wrong (because that conversation would look quite different), but rather that you're likely too invested in this topic right now to see rationally and objectively. TiggerJay (talk) 06:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    It was not my intent to ignore those assessments, and I understand what you've said as far as uninvolved editors raising such issues (real or perceived). Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 19:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    Also, as a note, this isn't ANI... - The Bushranger One ping only 07:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    Infact I don't know why such a simple infobox change discussion will resulted in endless arguments. And it happened in mutiple pages, like this Voepass crash case, this Swiftair crash case, and now this Azerbaijan Airlines crash case there. And I'm afraid there would be other arguements in previous pages.
    But to be honest, I think I also have some responsibilities on this endless situation: I have known what to do to deal with such major changes, but I didn't really take any action. Awdqmb (talk) 07:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    The whole "Accident vs Crash" thing has been going on for a while now. It pretty much goes nowhere every time. DEB gives a whole bunch of reasons why "accident" should be avoided, AWF gives a whole bunch of reasons why "accident" is perfectly fine, and it all repeats with every new WP:AIRCRASH article. I just recommended on DEB's talk page that they try to seek a wider consensus to break this endless cycle, because I for one am tired of seeing the same arguments over and over again with no progress. - ZLEA T\ 08:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    Infact you can check the talkpage I provided, you will find such arguments have happened on mutiple pages. Awdqmb (talk) 08:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    Since the regular editors in this topic area have proven that they are unable to resolve this utterly trivial terminology dispute among themselves, perhaps the best solution might be to topic ban every consistent advocate of "accident" and to topic ban every consistent advocate of "crash" from all articles about airplane mishaps, and let entirely uninvolved editors make a reasonable decision. Because endless bickering among entrenched advocates is disruptive. Topic bans could then be lifted on editors who explicitly agree to stop beating a dead horse and drop the terminology issue forever. Cullen328 (talk) 08:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    It's less "unable to resolve" and more "Dreameditsbrooklyn argues that using 'accident' is original research because the sources use 'crash'" and I wish I was joking. Your modest proposal probably would get some kind of result though! - The Bushranger One ping only 08:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    Infact I have already suggested to delete this controversial value on the talkpage of the template, since it have not much actural use to show, and mostly have the same contents with the "Summary" value. And ironically, it has showed the available value on the doc page, but the example they showed on simply violate it! But since then nobody really talk about it yet. Awdqmb (talk) 08:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    As someone who has consistently been on the side "accident is fine" of this argument (there really isn't an "accident/crash" binary here, just whether "accident" is original research), I think that's a bit extreme. I laid out a plan to seek wider consensus on DEB's talk page, which should hopefully help resolve the issue once and for all without the need for more drastic measures. - ZLEA T\ 09:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    Respectfully, the descriptions aren't trivial. A "crash" describes what happened. An "accident" implies someone made a mistake with no real culpability. An "incident" implies some sort of interaction or series of events. I have no specific dog in this fight and I don't believe I've voiced any significant opinion on the matter here or elsewhere, but such a description is not trivial when we are trying to be neutral in our descriptions. In this particular case, it very much appears that the act was deliberate and the airliner was acceptable collateral damage (in their opinion). At a minimum, it's disputed. As such, "accident" isn't appropriate as it is at least alleged to be a deliberate act or negligence. "Incident" or "crash" would be more neutral. If we say "accident" it implies no one should be blamed and fails WP:Neutral. Buffs (talk) 22:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    If only it were that simple (the context of aviation has been explicitly excluded from at least one discussion on the matter). We could go over whether "accident" actually implies no culpability in the context of aviation all day, but this is not the place to do it. As I stated numerous times, we need to formally establish a project-wide consensus about this, and WT:AATF is a good place to start. As for this discussion, I think it can be closed as the issue in question is very minor. - ZLEA T\ 22:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    WP:MOS says: If any contradiction arises, this page has precedence.
    WP:AT, which follows MOS says: Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources.
    The very broad majority of RS call this a crash. Why, in this case, doesn't this apply? Because some editors disagree? I am honestly asking. I don't see a policy which overrules MOS here. Also, I'll hold off on any new discussions on this until things have concluded here and at the article talk page, where the same editor who started this discussion opened an RfC on the topic. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 22:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    I will not continue this off-topic discussion here. If the same perceived problem is happening across multiple WT:AATF articles, then the discussion needs to be moved there to finally end the cycle and come to a consensus. - ZLEA T\ 23:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    I'm not sure WP:AATF is the correct venue to continue the discussion for a number of reasons, which I will spare going into here. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 23:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    The very broad majority of RS call this a crash. Why, in this case, doesn't this apply? Because simple issues of phraseology don't need to "follow the sources", and insisting that they do is WP:WIKILAWYERING. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    Others have rejected this as the venue to hold this debate, and I will too. I suggest you follow your own advice and drop the stick, at least for now. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 02:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    An "accident" implies someone made a mistake with no real culpability No, it does not. The International Civil Aviation Organization, which is somewhat of an authority on the matter, defines an 'aircraft accident' as Accident. An occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft ..., in which: a) a person is fatally or seriously injured b) the aircraft sustains damage or structural failure c) the aircraft is missing or is completely inaccessible. Notice what isn't there - anything about mistakes or culapbility. @Buffs: "Accident" is the official internationally recognized term for this sort of occurance, and is entirely neutral in use. Note that "incident" has a very specific term in aviation which is "an occurrence, other than an accident, associated with the operation of an aircraft that affects or could affect the safety of operation." @Dreameditsbrooklyn: I'd suggest you drop the stick and stop pushing this personal intrepretation. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    Why do you think this jargon use should take precedence over the common meaning of the word? The word "accident" can be used in (at least) two senses, one of which involves a lack of intention -- the fact that the ICAO (who?) says that they use the word "accident" in only one of these senses isn't somehow magically binding on everyone else who uses the word in the context of aviation. Given the choice between a word with two ambiguous senses, one of which inappropriate, and a word that has only one relevant sense, it's obvious that the latter word will be clearer, isn't it? 50.224.79.68 (talk) 04:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    International Civil Aviation Organization. The people whose job it is to establish these things for aviation. It's not the use of one word for the other that I have a problem with. It's the argument that, somehow, using "accident" constitutes original research when in fact it is the correct terminology - and in fact some of the suggested alternatives are explicitly incorrect terminology - is the problem. And no, its not "magically binding", but common useage in the context of aviation is to refer to any crash as an "aviation accident", just like how if somebody deliberately rear-ends you in road rage it's still a "car accident" - it isn't WP:JARGON. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    Do you think there was a car accident in New Orleans a few days ago? When you appeal to an organization like ICAO for what the meaning of a common word is, you are by definition using jargon. 2600:1700:47F8:800F:0:0:0:1BF7 (talk) 17:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    When you appeal to an expert for the meaning of a word in the context of what it's being used in, that's common sense. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    It’s the very definition of the word jargon! No wonder people are finding you impossible to deal with. 108.169.132.163 (talk) 18:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    What is "an occurrence, other than an accident..." if "accident" includes "incidents"? Definition you're claiming here doesn't make a lot of sense. Buffs (talk) 19:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    Accident =/= incident, which I believed was clear. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    Incident includes accidents AND intentional acts. Buffs (talk) 18:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    Not according to the ICAO definition, but this probably is something best not continued here I reckon. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    I did not bring this up to WP:AN to litigate whether to use "crash" or "accident". If you would like to litigate that, I have started a RfC on the Talk page. I brought this here to ask the admins to discuss whether DEB's and AWF's behavior is worth pursuing administrator action. guninvalid (talk) 01:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    Since you think this is an "utterly trivial terminology dispute" should I tag you in the RFC at WP:RS when I make it, or not? I don't wish to bother you if it's not important to you. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 22:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    I know this discussion is about conduct, not about the disagreement which prompted it, but I'll note that the other user named here and who has not responded has since changed several instances of the word 'crash' to accident on other entries and has also since been accused of violating 3RR on the very entry which prompted this discussion. I've agreed to confine any further conversations to the talk page until a consensus is reached, wherever that may be. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 02:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    On the very entry for a completely different reason regarding the use of the Aviation Safety Network but I concede that whilst I was within the limits of 3RR, it probably shouldn't have gotten to that point in the first place. ... since changed several instances of the word 'crash' to accident on other entries – The only changes made were either related to a change within the infobox to stay consistent with Template:Infobox aircraft occurrence as the occurrence type on the aforementioned article stated Airliner crash, or related to changes regarding short descriptions since they were changed to be phrased in a way that is not usually done. It's not like I removed every single mention of the word crash and replaced it with accident. But back to the main topic, I'm willing to drop the issue as long as it's not an problem to use accident in articles relating to aviation. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 03:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

    Can we close this? The current discussion has next to nothing to do with the original issue and is best continued somewhere else. - ZLEA T\ 19:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

    Agreed. An admin got involved and simply continued off-topic discussion. guninvalid (talk) 21:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

    Request removal of PMR/Rollback

    Flags removed JJPMaster (she/they) 22:52, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    Hi, lately, I haven't been using my page-mover and rollback rights that often and I don't feel returning to the activity anytime soon. Can any admin remove these flags from my account. I relatively happen to support in file-renaming areas these days and have also decided to put in some efforts in this month's NPP backlog. So these rights should stay. Thank you. Regards, Aafi 10:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

     Done. Primefac (talk) 10:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Insults, personal attacks and reverts of academic material

    This appears to be done. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    After reverting multiple edits that included references to peer-reviewed papers in academic journals, @FMSky posted the following on the Naomi Seibt talk page: "Put your trash analyses in the appropriate section(s) and stop flooding the lead with citations.". 62.74.35.238 (talk) 12:05, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

    Yes, why haven't you done that? --FMSky (talk) 12:07, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    Article in question is a contentious topic x3. The initial reverts of the IP's edits were for WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY, since the IP included all the material in question in the lead with no mention in the body of the article. Does FMSky need trouted for using the term "trash analyses"? Maybe. However, the IP's actions lean into the WP:ACCUSATIONOFMALICE category, and that may call for either direct sanctions against the anonymous editor or protection/sanctions on the article in question. —C.Fred (talk) 12:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    Does FMSky need trouted for using the term "trash analyses"? How else would you describe the IPs additon of "In May 2020, she reiterated her dismissal of investigative evidence by endorsing" --FMSky (talk) 12:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    You deleted all academic sources that claim that she is far-right, including other sources that have nothing to do with WP:ACCUSATIONOFMALICE. 62.74.35.238 (talk) 12:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    Which also indicates that you were more focused on reverting information you don't agree with, without first discussing it in the talk page. 62.74.35.238 (talk) 12:15, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    Edit: also doubled down. 62.74.35.238 (talk) 12:15, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    Put your new content into the body of the article instead of the lead. The lead is a summary of the body --FMSky (talk) 12:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    Done. Now it’s a summary. 62.74.35.238 (talk) 12:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    User continues to stuff the lead with info not found anywhere else 1. A block or article lock would be appreciated --FMSky (talk) 12:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    I will proceed with covering the whole lead in the rest of the page. Give me an hour or two. 80.149.170.8 (talk) 13:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    Start with the body. Do the lede last. And work at article talk to make sure you have consensus before making major changes, especially to the lede. Simonm223 (talk) 13:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    The IP has come up with a more than sufficient number of reliable sources to back up the far right assertions (etc). However, the lead is not the place to stuff them: they should be in the body, and the lead should reflect that content. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 14:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Not only is there a pattern of IP editors inserting large chunks of information to the intro about her right-wing ties, but I also see this edit from 21 December that seemed to be at the start of the pattern, and that's from now-blocked user FederalElection (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). At the least, that's a mitigating factor to excuse FMSky's heavy-handed reaction to these latest edits. At the most, it's grounds to revert the addition until a (new, civil, content-related) discussion at the talk page generates consensus to include it and/or protect the page—and that protection might need logged as CTOP enforcement. —C.Fred (talk) 12:23, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
      You are consistently reverting edits that can be fully backed by reliable peer reviewed articles. You are refusing to acknowledge the scholarly literature. If any of you wanted to politely contribute to the article, you would not remove such sources. It’s not just the “chunk of information”, as you like to refer to it, but the constant removal of content you personally don’t agree with. Asking for the article to be locked is an effort to block others to edit, when the information provided is reliable. The bias extends to your plea to excuse FMSky’s insults. 62.74.35.238 (talk) 12:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
      IP - from what FMSky is saying above it looks like the issue is that you're attempting to put material in the lede which is not elaborated upon within the body of the article. This is a manual of style issue. Maybe consider working at article talk to find an appropriate place within the article for your sources. Simonm223 (talk) 13:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
      Tread lightly, IP. Trying to link policy-based edits to personal bias is wading back into WP:ACCUSATIONOFMALICE. You will need to present strong evidence to back such accusations up. —C.Fred (talk) 13:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
      I'll add that WP:BLPRESTORE requires consensus before restoring material removed "on good-faith BLP objections". Even if the information was in the body, wp:undue concerns arise with pretty much anything added to the lead. So if an editor feels material doesn't belong in the lead of a BLP, it's entirely reasonable to ask for there to be consensus before it's added back. Nil Einne (talk) 09:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

    I think everything's been said that needs to be said here. As long as 62.74.35.238 now complies with the request to add the content to the body of the article before adding any summary to the lead, all users engage on the talk page, I don't think any admin action is necessary. WaggersTALK 13:37, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    Appeal of topic ban from 2018

    There is consensus to remove this topic ban reached as part of an unblock. Closer's note: as a contentious topic if disruption were to happen again any uninvolved administrator could reimplement the topic ban. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    In January 2018 (I believe), I was topic banned from editing articles related to Donald Trump due to a number of idiotic edits that violated BLP. The UTRS ticket for this I believe is here. In the time since then, I have demonstrated that I can edit Misplaced Pages constructively (I have 80,350 edits, a large number of which will be on BLP and BLP-related topics), and so I am requesting for this topic ban to be revoked. Whilst I do not plan to make large edits on Donald Trump articles, I would like to have the ability to edit articles on current US events from time to time e.g. to comment on them at WP:ITNC where Trump-related article nominations often appear. Please could you consider removal of this editing restriction? Courtesy ping to Alex Shih who implemented the topic ban in the first place . Joseph2302 (talk) 12:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

    For what it's worth, Alex Shih was removed as an administrator in 2019 and has not edited since August, 2022. Cullen328 (talk) 17:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    I'd generally support this. Joseph's topic ban from ITN/C and related pages was lifted more than a year ago, and there haven't been any problems in that area, so I have some optimism that this topic ban is also no longer needed. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    I'm a little concerned that after the big mess in 2018 they still managed to get themselves blocked again in 2022. But, yeah, as Floq says, they seem to have moved past that and have a year's worth of productive editing now. They also seem to understand what got them in trouble in the first place, so I'll cautiously endorse lifting the TBAN. It needs to be understood, however, that with this much history if there's more problems I don't expect there will be much willingness to extend any more WP:AGF. RoySmith (talk) 21:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    Endorse lifting TBAN per above. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    Endorse removal of topic ban. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    Endorse removal of topic ban per Misplaced Pages:One last chance. Cullen328 (talk) 02:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:SpiralWidget vandalizing pages

    Given this, it appears the OP has withdrawn their complaint. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    I am reporting User:SpiralWidget for repeated vandalism on articles I have created or contributed to. Below is the evidence of their disruptive behavior:

    Evidence

    1. Diff 1 – User:SpiralWidget removed sourced content and replaced it with false information. – This is when SpiralWidget first began vandalizing my contributions. He falsely alleged that simply creating a wikipedia article was to influence an election, and even posted a link to a ballotpedia page about an election in 2026 to encourage sabotaging the article. The reason this is concerning, is because the page is general information about Moliere Dimanche, an artist, a prison reform activist, and a litigant who accomplished a presidential case law and wrote a book. Nothing in the page promotes anything election related, and as can be seen in the link, SpiralWidget did not base the reason on anything other than unwarranted suspicions.

    2. Diff 2 – In this instance, SpiralWidget removed information from a discussion with Professor Tim Gilmore about Dimanche's high school teacher Mrs. Callahan, and a very effective way she helped students in. English class. Mrs. Callahan would give students key words from the play Caesar, and have them use them in an essay writing contest that was timed. Dimanche excelled at this and became an outstanding student in Mrs. Callahan's class. SpiralWidget took an issue that is not even contentious and used it to sabotage the article. It is sabotage because Caesar is a play that was actually written by Shakespeare. I don't think any reasonable person would find that as contentious because it was in an English class in high school, and Caesar is just one part of the lessons on Shakespeare. That's like if the interview was about Frankenstein, and the article stated that Dimanche excelled in studying Mary Shelley. It was unnecessary harassment.

    3. Diff 3 – In this instance, SpiralWidget moved a redirect page to drafts after the article was pointed to a different article using Dimanche's full name instead of his nickname. His reason was so that there could be a discussion, but Misplaced Pages's guidance on this clearly states that a formal discussion is not necessary for redirects, and Misplaced Pages's deletion policy discourages deleting duplicate pages. It even encourages editors to delete entire text and replacing it with redirects. Yet, again, SpiralWidget took it upon himself to allege political motivations, and none of it is true.

    4. Diff 4 - After SpiralWidget did that, he then nominated Moliere Dimanche for deletion, again alleging that it had something to do with an election for governor in 2026. This is not true. The article talks about Dimanche's humble upbringing, his time spent in prison, his efforts in local politics in Orlando, his art, and a case law he helped accomplish in the 11th Circuit that set precedent regarding the Prison Litigation Reform Act. And even if it did, Misplaced Pages has many candidates for office. Misplaced Pages even displays election results, gains by party affiliation, laws introduced, and many other accolades. This is what makes me believe SpiralWidget has some type of animus for Mr. Dimanche, because he constantly makes an issue out of the election, when the article does not focus on that at all.

    5. Diff 5 - The vandalism didn't stop there. SpiralWidget then went to Dimanche v. Brown and nominated that page for deletion as well. Why, because Dimanche was a part of that case. He lied and said that the case was not notable, before asserting that it only made Dimanche look good. This is ridiculous and appears to be hateful. This is a case law, meaning it is not something Dimanche had control over at all. Also, the "Precedential Status" of the law is "Precedential". The case has been cited by judges all across the nation to resolve an additional 178 federal cases. To put that in perspective, Roe v. Wade was cited 2,341 times in resolving federal cases since 1973. This is approximately 46 citations per year. Since Dimanche v. Brown was passed it averages about 20 citations a year. So for SpiralWidget to lie and say that the case is not notable, when clearly, the judge of this country would state otherwise is nothing more than vandalism. Additionally, Misplaced Pages already found all of the related laws and indexed them accordingly.

    Spiralwidget (talk) is vandalizing my pages if they even mention Dimanche, and he is doing harm to genuine, good faith editing. I believe the articles about Dimanche are necessary and important because his prison experience is well documented, and his art is unusual. Renown scholars like Tim Gilmore and Nicole Fleetwood have given thoughtful analysis to his art, and the art is widely recognized. I don't think these articles should be nominated for deletion, and I would request that they be taken out of that nomination, and SpiralWidget be prohibited from further editing on the subject of Dimanche.

    6. List affected articles: Moliere Dimanche, Dimanche v. Brown, etc.

    Context

    - This behavior has been recurring since SpiralWidget used the ballotpedia link the first time and persists today. - I believe this violates Misplaced Pages’s policies and discourages editors from adding to Misplaced Pages.

    I have notified the user on their talk page using ==Notice of noticeboard discussion== Information icon There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.. I kindly request administrative intervention to address this issue.

    NovembersHeartbeat (talk) 18:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

    First, you need to read and understand the definition of "vandalism" in WP:Vandalism. Next, you are not allowed to remove properly placed AfD notices until the AfD has been properly closed. I do not see anything improper in Spiralwidget's edits that you linked. I would advise you to drop this complaint and read over our policies and guidelines before resuming editing. Donald Albury 18:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thank you for your feedback. I understand that I should not remove AfD notices before they are officially closed, and I will follow the proper procedures moving forward. I will also review WP:Vandalism more thoroughly to ensure I’m taking the correct steps in addressing any inappropriate edits. I appreciate your advice and will proceed accordingly. NovembersHeartbeat (talk) 18:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    Hi! I feel like I need to weigh in here on my perspective.
    • I was reviewing articles on WP:AFC back in September (EDIT: Turns out it was November. Seems like longer ago.) and stumbled upon Draft: Moe Dimanche, which had been submitted by NovembersHeartbeat (Diff1 in the list above). I then found that he was running for Governor of Florida in 2026, and added a comment on the article pointing this out for future reviewers (as I did not feel strongly about the subject, and I am not so familiar with WP:ARTIST, which was the main claim of notability).
    • Following this, NovembersHeartbeat responded here https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Draft%3AMoe_Dimanche&diff=1256694716&oldid=1256642401 and accused me of election interference.
    • I then commented on User talk:NovembersHeartbeat because I felt I needed to respond to this. NovembersHeartbeat then responded negatively, but eventually I decided to leave the issue and bookmark Draft:Moe Dimanche on my watchlist in order to follow the conversation from then on.
    • On 2 January, earlier today, I opened my Watchlist to see that Draft:Moe Dimanche had been moved to mainspace by NovembersHeartbeat. I then pressed the "revert" button, which I wrongly assumed would revert the article to draftspace. Turns out, this was not possible because NovembersHeartbeat had NOT published Moe Dimanche as an article; instead, he had made a new article, Moliere Dimanche, with a new name, in order to get past the AfC process (which was not going well for Dimanche at all...); as a result, the attempted reversion did not work at all. I then decided that, although I believe I was entitled to go for speedy deletion, I would nominate the article for deletion (I still have WP:COI concerns and I don't think he passes WP:GNG) and also nominate Dimanche v. Brown, which has also been created by NovembersHeartbeat recently.
    • In addition, I would like to question whether there is WP:COI going on here. I think a pertinent recent example that looks suspicious to me is the upload of the image https://commons.wikimedia.org/File:Moliere_dimanche.png which was uploaded at 03:26, 1 January 2025 (i.e. 22:26 on 31 December Florida time) by user https://commons.wikimedia.org/User:Moe_Dimanche, who I am assuming is the subject himself in the flesh. This was then added to the article in this edit by NovembersHeartbeat https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Moliere_Dimanche&oldid=1266552816 on 04:40, 1 January 2025 (23:40 on 31 December Florida time). This is only slightly over an hour after the file itself was uploaded, at a time when most people were at a New Years Eve party. I am not making accusations here, but I am concerned that Dimanche is having communication with NovembersHeartbeat. Either that, or NovembersHeartbeat is indulging in WP:SOCK... Would NovembersHeartbeat like to comment on this? Spiralwidget (talk) 19:05, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    Well, I was advised to drop the complaint, but if you still want answers, I don't mind telling you as I have told you before, I do not have any conflicts of interest. Your whole approach to this topic just seems personal. Even here, the content of the article is not in question, the facts are not in question, you just seem to believe that I am the subject. I made this complaint because I feel like what you are doing is harassment, and you might know the subject yourself or have some type of rivalry against him. I thought Misplaced Pages had a mechanism to prevent that, and I was wrong. I don't know what else to tell you. NovembersHeartbeat (talk) 19:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    I checked diff 2 in the complaint, and Spiralwidget is correct: the source does not support the text. Spiralwidget was justified in removing it. Schazjmd (talk) 22:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    "Mrs. Callahan would give students key words from the play Caesar, and have them use them in an essay writing contest that was timed. Dimanche excelled at this" is from NovHeartbeats, but none of this is in the source. How does November know so much about how these assignments worked? Was November in the classroom, or is November using sources the rest of us can't see? 74.254.224.67 (talk) 23:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    The exact text from the source is

    "And I had a really good English class back at West Orange High School in Orlando. Ms. Callahan. I couldn’t wait to get to her class. She’d give us a certain amount of time to write a story with keywords from a play we were reading, like Julius Caesar."

    The source says exactly what you just quoted. NovembersHeartbeat (talk) 00:02, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    The source says nothing about whether he was good in the class ("excelled") nor does it say "he enjoyed studying Shakespeare". Schazjmd (talk) 00:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    The source doesn't mention any contests as you seem to know about. And its an interview of Moliere, with two single line questions asked by the interviewer. It definitely doesn't support anything except Moliere saying he had a favorite class, which isn't encyclopedic. 74.254.224.67 (talk) 00:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

    This is discussion is turning into a content dispute, which doesn't belong here. There's a bit of WP:OUCH going on but right now I don't see a need for admin intervention for either editor. WaggersTALK 15:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

    While there is a content dispute in play here, I think behavior is a problem as well...but it's largely by the OP. Remarks like " is vandalizing my pages" (emphasis added). @NovembersHeartbeat:, I would strongly advise that you read WP:OWN, WP:BRD, WP:VANDALISM, and WP:ANYONE. These aren't your pages. Anyone can edit them. If you have a disagreement, then bring it to the talk page. What you are describing as vandalism, is normal editing and disagreement; I would encourage you to strike such remarks as they are inherently hostile when unsubstantiated. This is a normal part of the collaborative editing process. If you don't, your complaints will not only be ignored, but may be to your own detriment. I understand that people may feel that some subjects aren't notable to get their own page and nominations for deletion can feel personal. I've weighed in for inclusion on the subject. Try not to take it personally. Buffs (talk) 19:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    Repeated tool abuse by User:FlightTime

    Not tool abuse. The IPv6 editor should discuss this with FlightTime, not ANI EvergreenFir (talk) 06:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    I have been working on the article Fender Stratocaster with a view to possibly improving it to featured article status at some point in the future. At this point, the edits are mostly restructuring to bring the article into a shape that can then be further developed, depending what it still needs when that first step is done. FlightTime took exception to some edit I made between 22nd and 23rd of December and reverted four edits, without clarifying exactly which edit they thought was problematic. We had a conversation about it, and they reverted themselves. At that point, I believed we had cleared the air, and the situation would not repeat itself.

    However, today, they reverted 17 edits of mine, all in one go, again without any explanation of which edit(s) they felt were problematic. Thus, they make it impossible to discuss or remedy what they felt was the problem. In my opinion, this constitutes tool abuse, and if they cannot improve their communication with IP users and ideally use the tools in a more targeted way, this is a problem for the community.

    Thank you for your time and consideration, and any help in getting to a more constructive collaboration on this article.

    2A02:8071:184:4E80:0:0:0:EAC0 (talk) 00:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

    This is not tool abuse, you are being reverted with reasons, and you should discuss the matter with FlightTime. PhilKnight (talk) 00:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    I'm not sure what you mean without any explanation as his edit summary clearly documents his reason as Reverted good faith edits by 2A02:8071:184:4E80:0:0:0:EAC0 (talk): Unsourced, unexplained content removal, unsourced OR. Please note that he did assume good faith (not maliciousness), and that he appears at first glance correct that you were removing content without reason, and adding unsourced and/or original research to the article, which is not permitted. Please use the article talk page at: Talk:Fender Stratocaster or talk to the editor directly on their talk page at User talk:FlightTime and work on building consensus instead of readding the same or similar content to the article. TiggerJay (talk) 01:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    Again, which are the pieces that you are now objecting to? We are talking about 17 edits, so please be specific! Thank you. 2A02:8071:184:4E80:0:0:0:EAC0 (talk) 06:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Emoji redirect

    👌 - The Bushranger One ping only 05:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    Was trying to create 👌 (film) as a redirect to Super (2010 Indian film); the film does not actually have a title and was represented in posters by the Vitarka Mudrā aka the OK gesture. Apparently the emojis are on a blacklist, it would be great if someone can create this rd, thanks. Gotitbro (talk) 01:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

     Done. JJPMaster (she/they) 01:48, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Topic ban appeal

    Hello, I have a topic ban that is approaching one year old on "undiscussed moves, move discussions, deletion discussions, and racial issues broadly construed (including topics associated with the Confederate States of America)". I would like an opportunity to contribute to these topics again. I have been fairly inactive since then but I have edited a few articles without issue. Thank you. DesertInfo (talk) 04:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

    I'll kick off by asking the standard two questions: (1) please explain in your own words why you were topic banned; (2) do you have anything to say to convince everyone those same issues won't occur again? WaggersTALK 14:01, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    I was topic banned for not assuming good faith and making an allegation that someone was using a sockpuppet when I was unable to provide substantial evidence. The topic ban was appealable after 3 months but I stepped away for almost a year. I am ready to discuss these topics respectfully and understand the importance of patience and communication. ANI should be a last resort. DesertInfo (talk) 18:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    Can you provide a link to the discussion where this topic ban was imposed? Thank you. Liz 04:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    Found it. Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1097#Desertambition's hostile edit history. Tarlby 04:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thank you. That is helpful to have. Liz 07:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    • I support lifting the ban. DI's talk page makes for interesting reading, it shows quite a remarkable change in attitude over a period of a few years, and I believe that's genuine. WaggersTALK 08:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose lifting the topic ban I think being warned for making edits that violating a topic ban, then being almost completely inactive for six months, and then coming back and asking for it to be lifted and that passing sets a horrible example. * Pppery * it has begun... 06:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
      It seemed like a good idea to step away from the site for a time. I was receptive to the warning, even though it was not from an admin, and stopped editing in that area entirely. These are the edits in question: I just forgot that I had to appeal the topic ban here first and haven't gotten around to it until now. It should be noted that the first edit merely restored a previous RFC that had been ignored and the last two were minor changes to articles that have since been restored.
      I have never made a different account or tried to dishonestly avoid the topic ban and I never will. All I ask is that you WP:AGF and give me a chance to show that I can contribute collaboratively and have matured. DesertInfo (talk) 21:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Only 106 edits since unblocking (including the unblocking), of which includes apparently no edits to article talkpages, which is where a lot of the issues emerged. There's not much to really evaluate change. CMD (talk) 07:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
      I have largely avoided getting involved in article talk pages in order to avoid violating the topic ban. If I were to get involved in these topics to demonstrate change, it would be in violation of the topic ban. Seems like a catch-22. DesertInfo (talk) 20:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
      There are literally millions of articles and talk pages not covered by your topic ban. You are expected to demonstrate change there. Why on earth do you think this makes it a catch-22 situation?!? --Yamla (talk) 22:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
      I have made plenty of edits to articles like Caribbean Basin, List of current detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Venezuelan Caribbean, and List of archipelagos in the meantime without issue, there was no need to discuss it on the talk page. I have tried to make clear edit summaries and contribute to the encyclopedia. DesertInfo (talk) 22:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose lifting the topic ban. As per Chipmunkdavis, there have been very few edits since the unblock in February 2024. Although DesertInfo says "I have made plenty of edits", I just don't see enough here to justify lifting the topic ban. I'll also note that at least some of these edits came close to violating the topic ban (see User_talk:DesertInfo#Topic_ban for example). --Yamla (talk) 23:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose at this time I appreciate that you walked away rather than risk violating the ban. that shows some recognition of the issue and willingness to try and do something about it. However, what we would want to see would be a decent track record of editing over a sustained period without any hint of violating the ban, and you are just not there yet. Beeblebrox 23:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
      I have edited multiple articles without issue. I don't understand why I would edit articles I'm not interested in/knowledgeable about. I don't want to add useless info or talk page comments for the sake of adding it. I have tried to contribute to articles I know something about. The topic ban is very broad and could reasonably be argued to cover most history/politics subjects.
      I made a genuine mistake half a year ago that was not egregious and did not violate the topic ban, only coming close. When reminded of the topic ban, I stopped immediately. The topic ban was appealable after 3 months. I was told to step away from editing entirely for a long period of time and I did:
      This ban has been in place been in place since 2022, over 3 years. A lot has changed and I have matured greatly. DesertInfo (talk) 23:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
      The topic ban is not so broad as to cut off most of en.wiki. Aside from the move and deletion restrictions, which are technical and do not restrict editing from any particular page, the topic ban is just "racial issues broadly construed". Do you really feel that this covers every article you are either interested in or knowledgeable about? Do you really feel you can't participate in talkpages without infringing on this? CMD (talk) 01:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Comment - I'd say "racial issues broadly construed" is actually pretty broad given how much of history/geography is touched by it. I'd also say they do appear to have made an effort to improve, though I'd still like to see more. FOARP (talk) 16:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

    Request to Fix Redirect Title: Camden stewart

    Looks like this is done. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:39, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    Hi, I need help correcting the capitalisation of the redirect "Camden stewart" to "Camden Stewart" as the surname is improperly lowercase. I cannot make the change myself because redirects require admin intervention for title corrections. Could an admin please assist? Thank you! GD234 (talk) 05:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

    How many redirects are you making? I see a lot of activity today. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 05:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thanks for your response! I’m just setting up a few redirects to make it easier for people to find Camdenmusique's article, like Camden Stewart or Camden Music. Let me know if anything needs adjusting, appreciate your help!" GD234 (talk) 05:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    @GD234: I have moved the article to draftspace at Draft:Camdenmusique. If you have a conflict of interest with Camden Bonsu-Stewart (which I suspect that you may since you are interested in ensuring that the article is indexed on Google and you uploaded his professional headshot), you must declare it following these instructions. You should also not republish the article until it has been reviewed by an experienced editor at articles for creation. voorts (talk/contributions) 05:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thank you for your feedback! GD234 (talk) 08:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Andra Febrian report

    "Andra Febrian" is disrupting many edits, I have seen many deleted edits by this user, and I would like to report the user for causing many edit wars. The edits unreasonably reverted by this user is very disruptive to me, as I only intend for useful contributions. The user has: - caused many edit wars
    - deleted citations along with deleting correct claims
    - not been cooperative (wikipedia's Editing policy) on many pages that good-intended edits have occurred on
    - not explained deletions of citations in a way that other users have been made upset.
    I request that the user is warned. HiLux duck — Preceding undated comment added 22:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

    First: the notice at the top of the page clearly says to place new sections at the bottom of the page, which I have now done for you. Second: you need to provide diffs for the edits you are complaining about. Third, you were supposed to notify Andra Febrian per the instructions at the top of the page. Another user has done so for you. - Donald Albury 00:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    @HiLux duck: please sign your comments using ~~~~, which will add a timestamp. Additionally, I reverted your edits to Peugeot 3008 and to Exeed because you are changing information in articles without citing reliable sources. You must cite sources when you add or change information in articles. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    HiLux duck just filed a new complaint at ANEW and made the exact same mistakes as they did here. I advised them to stop posting complaints on noticeboards until they can follow the instructions. Liz 07:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    FWIW, I have a feeling that HiLux Duck is a sockpuppet of MrDavr, but I am holding back until they give themselves enough rope to hang. Same obsession with defining overall lengths for various car classifications and edit warring at length over them.  Mr.choppers | ✎  00:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    I'm always impressed when editors can recall editing habits of editors that were blocked years ago. I guess I lack the longterm memory to keep track of sockpuppet habits. Liz 04:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Liz: MrDavr actually got under my skin at one point; otherwise I probably wouldn't have noticed. Thanks,  Mr.choppers | ✎  02:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    Looking into this  Looks like a duck to me (a HiLux WP:Duck?) because yeah, this is exactly the same editing pattern. Same username pattern as a number of MrDavr socks too (car names/variations thereof - Toyota Hilux). - The Bushranger One ping only 09:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    @The Bushranger - Quack quack? Blue Sonnet (talk) 15:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    Most likely yes, I knew that the his editing patterns matched an old blocked user but didn't remember the name. Alawadhi3000 (talk) 16:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    It's also interesting to note that HiLux duck's user page claims they've been on Misplaced Pages since 2019, and having compared edits more extensively I've seen enough and gone ahead and blocked per WP:DUCK. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

    Mr.Choppers warning request

    This was (again) posted at the top instead of the bottom; it seems like it is not really a separate issue. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 01:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

    User:Mr.Choppers has not followed the WP:Civility rules because:
    - calling me a "nuisance" because of own bias supporting others in edit wars that have nothing to do with the user. (WP:Civility) (WP:Civility (second violation this user has performed))
    - responded fairly aggressively to another user (me) without me being aggressive back or starting this edit war
    - note that he also called me a "sockpuppet of a banned user" without reliable clarification, also biased on that
    - also note the user had not informed me and used aggression to support own claims.

    I would like to inform that this user has unnecessarily used aggression and claimed things not there. Kind regards, HiLux duck (talk) 2:29, 6 January 2025 (GMT+12)

    Missed this because it was at the top. Very unlikely to have merit and is moot now, given the block. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

    Proposal to vacate ECR remedy of Armenia and Azerbaijan

    Already closed. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    There is a proposal to vacate the ECR remedy of WP:GS/AA at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals) § Remove Armenia-Azerbaijan general community sanctions. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    Cannot draftify page

    Done. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    I tried to draftify Wuliangbao_Pagoda but a draft exists with the same name (and same content before I blanked it). Could an admin delete the draft so I can draftify the article? If you reply here, please ping me. Thanks, TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 00:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

     Done @TheTechie: Draft:Wuliangbao Pagoda has been deleted. — xaosflux 01:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Remove PCR flag

    Flag run down. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    Can an admin remove my Pending changes reviewer flag as I have not used it recently. Thanks ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 06:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

    Done. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    "The Testifier" report

    Moved to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § "The Testifier" report – voorts (talk/contributions) 18:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

    Problem with creating user talk page

    CU blocked as sock by Spicy. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    Hello, I'd like to get some help to create the talk page of user BFDIisNOTnotable (talk · contribs) to warn them against edit warring with {{subst:uw-ewsoft}} or a similar notice. Trying to create the page gives a notice that "bfdi" is in the title blacklist. I wonder how the user was allowed to create the account today, given that from what I can see, the blacklist should also affect usernames...? I obviously can't notify the user of this AN post on their talk page. ObserveOwl (talk) 14:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

    I have created the talk page. No idea why 'BFDI' is on the blacklist, and if so, why a user name by that was allowed - that's something for cleverer heads than mine... GiantSnowman 14:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    I think it stands for "Battle for Dream Island". See WP:BFDI. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    Ah, I wondered if it was linked to Bundesbeauftragter für den Datenschutz und die Informationsfreiheit. GiantSnowman 14:32, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    As to the technical reason that the username could be created, the reason is that accounts are not actually created on this wiki. They are created globally. As a result, us blacklisting anything can't prevent account creation. Animal lover |666| 18:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    This particular account was definitely created on this wiki. Graham87 (talk) 01:04, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Administrators' newsletter – January 2025

    News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2024).

    Administrator changes

    added Sennecaster
    readded
    removed

    CheckUser changes

    added
    readded Worm That Turned
    removed Ferret

    Oversight changes

    added
    readded Worm That Turned

    Guideline and policy news

    Technical news

    • The Nuke feature also now provides links to the userpage of the user whose pages were deleted, and to the pages which were not selected for deletion, after page deletions are queued. This enables easier follow-up admin-actions.

    Arbitration

    Miscellaneous

    Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

    user:Uwappa: refusal to engage with WP:BRD process, unfounded allegation of WP:NPA violation, unfounded vandalism allegation

    I have indefinitely blocked Uwappa per WP:NLT. Whilst the legal threat pointed out by multiple editors may be very vague, it certainly is designed to have a chilling effect, and Uwappa has confirmed this with this addition to the section. Quite apart from that, we have persistent edit-warring, meritless claims of vandalism against others, and there is a limit to which an editor who thinks all of this is a big joke can be allowed to waste everybody else's time. They can explain themselves in an unblock request if they so desire. Black Kite (talk) 22:57, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    repost from archive:

    The content disagreement behind this report is trivial in the overall scope of Misplaced Pages (although the articles affected are subject to WP:MEDRS), but the editor behaviour is not. My reason to bring this case to ANI is that user:Uwappa rejects some basic principles of the project: WP:BRD means that a bold edit may be reverted to the status quo ante and goes on to say don't restore your bold edit, don't make a different edit to this part of the page, don't engage in back-and-forth reverting, and don't start any of the larger dispute resolution processes. Talk to that one person until the two of you have reached an agreement. Despite having been reminded about BRD after their first immediate counter-revert, they responded to the reversion to the sqa with another counter-revert and, after another editor reinstated the sqa, counter-reverted again. At no stage did they attempt to engage in BRD discussion. Both I and the other editor attempted to engage with them at their talk page: Uwappa characterises my explanation as a personal attack. On another page, Uwappa reverted an edit where I suppressed the questioned material template, declaring it "vandalism" in the edit summary. I recognise the rubric at BRD that says BRD is optional, but complying with Misplaced Pages:Editing policy § Talking and editing and Misplaced Pages:Edit war is mandatory but Uwappa has done neither.

    I consider my escalating this to ANI to be a failure of negotiating skill on my part but, while Uwappa refuses to engage, I am left with no choice. Allowing a few days for logic to intervene has not been fruitful. With great reluctance, because Uwappa has made valuable contributions, I have to ask that they be blocked until they acknowledge and commit to respect the principles that underlie BRD, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:OWN.

    Diffs: (all timestamps UTC. NB that I am in England => UTC+00:00, Uwappa is in Australia => UTC+10:00 )

    ---

    As of 11:48 (UTC) on 30/12, the live version of the template is the one that has consensus support. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:59, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

    Well, Uwappa hasn't edited on the project in 12 hours so it's pretty sage to assume they haven't seen this complaint yet. I'd like to hear their response and whether or not they are willing to collaborate before passing any judgment. Very through presentation of the dispute, easy to follow, so thank you for that. Liz 20:04, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
    Yes, that is why I felt it important to make clear that our time zones are very widely spaced, which makes collaboration difficult in the best of circumstances. When they do see it, I would expect they will take some time offline to polish their response before posting it – and consequently it is likely to be as long again before I respond. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:35, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

    Reposted above from archive, see User_talk:Uwappa#c-JMF-20250105190300-Uwappa-20250105161700

    JMF suggested to add the following bit from my talk page:

    You escaped sanction because there were too many more egregious cases in the pipeline and it is a first offence. ANI does not adjudicate on content disputes, only on behaviour and compliance with fundamental principles. The evidence against you was really unarguable; I have seen quite a few cases and I know how they play out: if it had reached a conclusion, you would have been blocked until you acknowledged that you had gotten carried away in the heat of the moment, that you understand and accept WP:EPTALK, WP:EW, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:OWN, and that from now on you commit to respecting them. I strongly advise that you take the message anyway. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    Mate, sorry I was late for the escalation party. End of the year was a madhouse here, both in business and with social activities.
    I was very happy you did escalate and will be happy to reply now that I have spare time available for WP. My business legal department is pretty exited about it, like a kid in a candy store, can't wait to put its teeth in WP rules and regulations.
    Would you like me to repost your escalation? Uwappa (talk) 12:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    I strongly advise that you read Misplaced Pages:No legal threats before you write another line. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:27, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

    I am so sorry I was late to join this party. End of the year was a bit too hectic, did not leave much spare time for fun activities like WP.

    user:Liz What would you like me to do now? Uwappa (talk) 04:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

    It was not clear on your talk page, and it's even less clear here since you did not repost your response to JMF's last line there. You do explicitly retract the apparent legal threat that was made? - The Bushranger One ping only 08:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    I did not make a legal threat. Uwappa (talk) 08:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Uwappa: your reference to your "business legal team" could certainly be construed as a veiled one, at the very least. You are being asked to clarify by either confirming or retracting this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    My business legal department is pretty exited about it, like a kid in a candy store, can't wait to put its teeth in WP rules and regulations. is either a legal threat or indistinguishable from one. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    No it is not a legal threat. It is about "WP rules and regulations", not about law.
    • To who would this be a threat?
    • Which law?
    • In which country?
    Uwappa (talk) 09:57, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    Why would a legal department be involved? — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:02, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    It certainly looks like a legal threat. M.Bitton (talk) 14:24, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Uwappa. Why would a legal department be involved? — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    Wow, I am glad you asked.
    • to have a bit of fun, take a break from the normal, pretty serious work. It will be like kids in a candy store.
    • It will be fun for me too. I can't wait to get going with this once the pandemonium calms down.
    • The accusation "user:Uwappa: refusal to engage" is utterly wrong.
    Uwappa (talk) 22:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    I'm not at all experienced in the legal world, but I don't think any professional legal team that you're paying money towards would ever be excited to save you from a website "like kids in a candy store". Tarlby 22:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    Why would a legal department be excited about you being reported on Misplaced Pages unless you're planning to use them in some way? Tarlby 17:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    I suspect, from context, that Uwappa was trying to suggest they would have assistance of a professional team in interrogating rules and regulations. But "I have the spend to wikilawyer this more than you can" isn't really all that much better than an outright legal threat. Between that and this edit what surprises me is that they're not blocked yet frankly. Simonm223 (talk) 17:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)


    and just to throw some more fuel on the bushfire, you have just accused me twice more of vandalism.03:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC), 08:03, 6 January 2025 (UTC). --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    • JMF above said you were in Australia and I had no reason to disbelieve him. If you aren't, it's irrelevant really, I was just pointing out that you may not edit for a few hours. No-one here is required to answer your questions, but I will; the point was that you invoked something that could be a legal threat My business legal department is pretty exited about it ... can't wait to put its teeth in WP rules and regulations. You say that isn't a legal threat, well fine, but you haven't explained what it was. Meanwhile, you're still edit-warring on the template and claiming that other's edits are vandalism, which they clearly aren't, which is why you can no longer edit it. Have I missed anything? Black Kite (talk) 17:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Again, that was either a legal threat or actions indistinguishable from a legal threat in an attempt to cause a chilling effect. When called on it you have continually Wikilawyered instead of straight-up saying "no, that was not a legal threat and I am not involving any legal actions in this". So to make it very clear: you need to clearly state that or be blocked per WP:NLT. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

    And just to add to the excitement, Uwappa has just repeated their allegation of vandalism against me and reverted to their preferred version of the template for the sixth time.16:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC) (Their edit note adds 3rd time in 24 hours: are they boasting of a 3RR vio? Zefr undid their fourth attempt, I undid their fifth attempt, but possibly they misread the sequence.) --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

    • Ha ha ha, this is beyond ridiculous.

      An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period.

      — WP:Edit_warring#The_three-revert_rule
      .
    • Suggestion: Add the following calculator to WP:3RR:

    3 is less than three. is equal to three. is more than three.

    • From WP:EW; Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring. Which this quite obviously does, especially as you've reverted twice whilst this report was ongoing. Frankly, you're quite fortunate it was only a partial block. Black Kite (talk) 22:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    To admins, please WP:ABAN Uwappa from further work on the calculator template for the body roundness index and waist-to-height ratio, and from further editing and talk page input on those articles. Uwappa has done admirable extensive work, but the simple calculator is finished and sufficient as it is. Uwappa has created voluminous WP:TLDR/WP:WALLOFTEXT talk page discussions for articles with under 50 watchers and few talk page discussants; few editors would read through those long posts, and few are engaged.
    In recent edits on templates, Uwappa reverts changes to the basic template as "vandalism". No, what we're saying is "leave it alone, take a rest, and come back in a few years when more clinical research is completed." Zefr (talk) 18:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    An inappropriate template being added to many pages

    A user is adding the "mortal sin" template to a large number of articles where it doesn't belong . I've reverted 3 of them that were added to the articles I have watchlisted. Could someone who knows how to do massive reverts take care of the others? Thanks. NightHeron (talk) 11:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

    Discussion at Misplaced Pages:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2025_January_6#Template:Mortal_sin_in_the_Catholic_Church. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    I've reverted the addition of the template. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    The template as been deleted per WP:G4. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

    A look through this editor's talk page shows that there is a wider issue with their editing about religion. Regarding this specific issue they have done something quite similar before (see Template:Mortal Sins According To The Catholic Church) along with a number of articles they've written moved to draftspace and that have been nominated for deletion. Their contibution history also shows a significant portion of edits having been reverted. Before suggesting any action I'm keen to hear from Oct13 on this. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

    Btw, the last time Oct13 has ever edited a noticeboard was on June 6 2020. The last 2 times they edited a talk page were on February 17 2022 and April 15 2020. Tarlby 17:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    It also looks like the main thing they have done on their own talk pages in the last seven or eight years is to just repeatedly blank it. We may have a RADAR situation here. Beeblebrox 01:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

    This editor's editing looks to consist largely of making inappropriate edits, "sourced" if at all to unreliable sources, and perhaps in hopes that if enough of that is done, a few will slip by. As we're unlikely to hear from them, I'd be in favor of indefinitely blocking them, at the very least until they meaningfully engage regarding the problems with their editing. Seraphimblade 01:55, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

    I second that. As we wait here, they continue to edit, and all have been reverted. Perhaps an articlespace block until we get a satisfactory response?— rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:23, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    I've blocked them indefinitely from mainspace. Seraphimblade 05:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    Liz invited them to reply here. Let’s keep this open for now and see if the user responds, now that regular editing of articles is blocked.— rsjaffe 🗣️ 15:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

    Ottawahitech, requesting an appeal on their talk page restriction

    User wants to use Misplaced Pages as a social network. Misplaced Pages is not a social network. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    Hello, I find that Ottawahitech (talk · contribs) has opened an appeal about their talk page restriction.


    As I have told the blocking admin, whom I am not pinging at their request, I do not wish to appeal my block. Before I was blocked at the discretion of Beeblebrox/Just Step Sideways I made about 75,000 "edits" to the English Misplaced Pages, and have continued contributing to other Wikimedia projects since my Block in 2017. I enjoy my recent volunteer activity more than I did my activity here, and do not ask for a complete unblock. However, I would still like to be able to communicate with fellow wikipedia editors and request the removal of the restrictions that have been imposed on my user-talk.
    Notice to the admin handling this request: Just to let you know I am a very infrequent visitor to the English Misplaced Pages, and as such there is no urgency in acting on this request. Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 23:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

    I'd copy them here. Though in my opinion, the restriction just came along commonly as the indef block. Hoping someone may like to review that. -Lemonaka 15:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

    This might be better at WP:AN. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:12, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    Moved per request-Lemonaka 15:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    What was Ottawahitech blocked for to begin with? My understanding is something to do with bad page creation attempts and / or edit warring at article talk. Is this correct? Has Ottawahitech demonstrated that they understand what they did was wrong? Because they appear to have been indeffed in 2017 and indefinite doesn't mean forever. If they've shown recognition of what led to their block and have committed not to repeat their mistakes then I'd be inclined to say this looks like a reasonable request. Simonm223 (talk) 15:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    Their previous block seemed a little bit like WP:CIR block, and I'm, auch, due to my interaction with them on another project, I'm inclining a not unblock. -Lemonaka 15:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Lemonaka: why did you post this here? I didn't see Ottawa make a request for this to go to AN. Additionally, blocked means blocked. We don't let blocked editors use their talk page to shoot the shit with other editors. If Ottawa wants to chat with old friends, they can email each other. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    I agree that we should decline this request. We're here to write an encyclopedia, not run a chat board. If Ottawahitech is interested in the social aspects of wikipedia, they should pursue other communication channels. Perhaps the Wikimedia Community Discord Server is what they're looking for. RoySmith (talk) 20:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    Argh. I came here for an entirely different reason, but I am unsurprised to see the persistent IDHT behavior of this user continues on.
    I blocked them in 2017 for persistent failure to abide by basic content policies, mainly being very experienced but still regularly creating pages that qualified for speedy deletion. I believe there was a discussion somewhere that led to it but I seem to have failed to note it in the block log. What I do recall is that they did not participate in that discussion.
    Several months later another admin revoked talk pages access because they were using the page to chat, and to ask other users to proxy for them, while not addressing the block.
    Four years later they contacted me via another WMF site and I did them the courtesy of re-instating their talk page for purposes of appealing their block. They then indicated they didn't want to do that, they just wanted talk page access back.
    And that's still all they want. They don't want to rejoin this community as an editor. There's no point to even discussing this except to consider the possibility of re-revoking TP access to avoid further time wasting nonsense like this. Beeblebrox 21:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

    FTR, here is the ANI discussion that led to the block of Ottawahitech. --bonadea contributions talk 21:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    RFU backlog doin' great

    I know I ruffled some feathers with the way I approached this last month, but I'm pleased to report that as of this writing there are less than twenty pending unblock requests, many of those being CU blocks. Not that long ago the daily average was closer to eighty. I certainly did not do this alone, in fact I was ill for a week there and did basically nothing. Quite a number of admins and others pitched in in various ways over the past few weeks to move things along.

    That's great, but we should not get complacent, as that was what led to the backlog being so bad before. Thanks to everyone who helped get it to where it is now. I would again encourage any and all admins to pitch in whatever they can to keep this manageable. Any substantive review of an unblock request helps. Thanks again to everyone who helped make this suck a little less. Beeblebrox 21:32, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

    Call for mentors

    There's a discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Growth Team features/Mentor list about extending the mentorship module to all new accounts. Presently, all new accounts are assigned a mentor, but only half of them receive the module that allows them to send questions to that mentor directly from the newcomer homepage. We'd like to extend the module access to all new accounts, but we're a bit short of the "ideal" number of mentors to do so - we're looking to get about 30 more. Posting here because the experienced users who haunt this noticeboard are likely to make good mentors. Basically the only requirement is "not jerk, has clue", with a side of "you should be someone who logs in frequently enough that your mentees won't feel ignored". Most of the questions you get are very easy to resolve. Some are harder. Every so often you get something actually fun. -- asilvering (talk) 23:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

    I signed up sometime last year, and I'd guesstimate that I've received questions from maybe 10% of the accounts I'm assigned to mentor. So far (knock on wood) it hasn't been onerous at all. (Hoping that will encourage more editors to give it a try.) Schazjmd (talk) 23:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    Just signed up. I had played with the idea before, but given there are well over a hundred mentors and I don't hear much about it, I assumed it wasn't terribly active or in need of more people. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    I've noticed I'm getting fewer questions, which I assume is because more mentors have signed up over time but the number of new accounts receiving the module has remained constant (it's a rare mentee who comes back and asks multiple questions over time). So it's true in a way that it didn't really need more people. I expect that you'll notice a significant boost when it goes to 100% and then a gradual decline again. -- asilvering (talk) 14:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    Time to add an option for three time the number of mentees assigned. Nobody (talk) 07:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    Seconding this, I wouldn't be opposed to taking over more mentees if there is a need for it until we get more mentors. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    Agreed, though the max number of mentees per page might want to be increased to 50 from 25. JayCubby 00:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    I signed up a week ago, and only got a single question asked of me. How many people are using the newcomer dashboard? There, I have found, aren't many users signing up and editing per day, per ListUsers, so I can't imagine there are very many people using the mentorship at all.
    I'd be curious to see what automatically assigning mentors would do to retention rates (maybe that's written somewhere). JayCubby 17:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    I've been "twice as many" assigned for quite awhile now (I think I was one of the first mentors when the program even launched) and I'd say it's not atypical to only get ten or so queries a month. You can look through my talk page archives if you want a more accurate number (also note that sometimes I revert mentee questions if they're obvious spam). Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    I just counted and it looks like I've had 156 questions since February 2022. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

    Discussion at Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Administrator elections

     You are invited to join the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Administrator elections. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

    Kansascitt1225 ban appeal

    I am posting the following appeal on behalf of Kansascitt1225 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki), who is considered banned by the community per WP:3X:

    (keeping it short for WP:TLDR) Hi Misplaced Pages community, it has been over 1 year since I edited on Misplaced Pages without evading my block or breaking community rules. I would like to be given another chance to edit. I realized that my blocking was due to my behavior of creating multiple accounts and using them on the same page and creating issues during a disagreement. I was younger then and am now able to communicate more effectively with others. I intend to respect community rules and not be disruptive to the community. I was upset years ago when I mentioned Kansas City’s urban decay and it was reverted as false and I improperly reacted in a disruptive way that violated the community rules. The mistake I made which caused the disruptive behavior was that I genuinely thought people were reverting my edits due to the racist past of this county and keeping out blacks and having a dislike for the county. I also thought suburbs always had more single family housing and less jobs than cities. In this part of the United States a suburb means something different than what it means in other parts of the world and is more of a political term for other municipalities which caught me off guard and wasn’t what I grew up thinking a suburb was. Some of these suburbs have lower single family housing rates and higher population density and this specific county has more jobs than the “major city” (referenced in previous unblock request if interested). This doesn’t excuse my behavior but shows why I was confused and I should have properly addressed it in the talk pages instead of edit warring or creating accounts. After my initial blocking, I made edits trying to improve the project thinking that would help my case when it actually does the opposite because I was bypassing my block which got me community banned to due the automatic 3 strikes rule. I have not since bypassed my block. I’m interested in car related things as well as cities and populations of the United States and want to improve these articles using good strong references. Thanks for reading. Kansascitt1225 (talk) 04:46, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

    References

    1. https://slate.com/business/2015/05/urban-density-nearly-half-of-america-s-biggest-cities-look-like-giant-suburbs.html. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

    voorts (talk/contributions) 21:22, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

    Heritage Foundation

    There is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Heritage Foundation intending to "identify and target" editors that may be of interest to those who watch this noticeboard, especially if you edit in the PIA topic area. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

    Deleted contributions request

    Done and dusted. Good work all. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    I'm currently leading an investigation at the English Wikibooks into poorly attributed page importations from the 2000s (decade). One page I discovered was Thick Sand Motorcycling, which was allegedly imported from an enwiki page called How-to/Motorcycling, but this page does not appear to have ever existed. It looks like this page was deleted at VFD in 2004, but there is no deletion log entry, so I can't find the original page to re-import to Wikibooks. Its talk page provides a page history for this enwiki article, which includes an anonymous editor whose IP address is 62.200.132.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). If the privacy policy allows it, I would like to know the titles of the pages that this user edited in their three deleted contributions (I don't need the content, just the titles). JJPMaster (she/they) 05:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

    @JJPMaster: The only deleted contributions from that IP are to the deleted article you linked above and garden variety vandalism of a redirect saying that "this is junk". If you're looking for poorly attributed page importations, this specific IP would be a dead end on that front. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 05:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Clovermoss: Nope, that's actually all I needed to know—I really just needed this information to verify the page title. Could this page be undeleted in my userspace so I can complete the proper import and merge? JJPMaster (she/they) 05:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    @JJPMaster: Done at User:JJPMaster/How-to/Motorcycling. I've never done something like this before so let me know if I messed up. I removed for VfD nomination template in case that screwed with bots or whatever. Let me know if there's anything else I can do to help. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 05:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Clovermoss: The import and merge are  Done. Please delete the page now. JJPMaster (she/they) 05:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    @JJPMaster: I've deleted the page. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 05:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

    The reason you couldn't find it in the deletion log is because logs didn't exist in their current form until 23 December 2004. This page was deleted about a month before that. —Cryptic 06:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    WP:NOTHERE behavior (or 'very' slow learner) from User: Astronomical17

    Editor hasn't edited in a week, feel free to reopen should disruption continue if they return. Liz 03:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    User:Astronomical17's talk page has got some history. It would seem they have a habit of AfCing articles on rappers and sports teams, failing them, and then making them anyway, such as with Devstacks which is currently at WP:AfD and looks like it deserves a PROD. They've been repeatedly informed to include sources and citations but seem to fail to do so. But my WP:NOTHERE allegation comes from this diff at the AfD where they blanked the page, seemingly in an attempt to obstruct the AfD process. Does this behavior warrant administrator action beyond a stern talking-to? guninvalid (talk) 10:10, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

    Sure, a long talk page, but not a single non-templated notice as far as I can tell (though I might have missed one). I think a kind word would suffice, at least to start out with. Primefac (talk) 10:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    I generally concur, however, this user (a.k.a. User:Cyanxbl) doesn't seem to be interested in talking to anyone about his actions. Buffs (talk) 21:06, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

    Left a warning and note on his user talk page. Hopefully he engages. If such behavior continues, a block may be necessary to get his attention and drive the collaborative process. While I support such a block, it should ONLY be used to stop such disruptive behavior if it continues. Once that ceases and he's willing to collaboratively edit, such a block should be lifted post haste! Buffs (talk) 21:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    Confusion about two articles that may be covering the same person

    The pages are Chaudhry Sher Ali Khan and Chaudhary Sher Ali. Can an administrator please find the correct name and merge them, if they are the same person? 71.202.215.54 (talk) 22:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

    Are they the same person? The date of birth (for Chaudhary Sher Ali) is the same in the text (without a source here), but in the infobox (added by an IP without a source: diff) it's different... Honestly, I feel it would be easier to just give up on this one, it was created by a sock-puppeteer (albeit on their original account, though they edited it with multiple socks too, seemingly all reverted), it's quite possibly a waste of time.
    That said I didn't actually investigate what is salvageable about the content - just reverted the last 2 edits by an IP. – 2804:F1...96:BB60 (::/32) (talk) 22:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC) *edited: 05:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    Special:Contribs/2804:F14::/32, this seems like a valid inquiry, why would it be considered a "waste of time"? I don't know what you mean by "giving up on this one" when it's a matter of investigating whether we have a duplicate article here. Liz 02:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    I'm not sure why you seem to be attempting to discourage people looking into this. Seems like something that would be both possible, and important, to do. Or at the very least, attempt. Sergecross73 msg me 02:58, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    Fair enough, I shouldn't be discouraging. I was thinking this might be a WP:TNT kind of situation (for the second linked article), due to the amount of socking and unsourced edits, and the article already existing if it's the same person, as opposed to merging them - but you are both right that it's always worth checking.
    I'll just cross out that part of the comment. – 2804:F1...96:BB60 (::/32) (talk) 05:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    I don't think this is an admin thing, it's a content issue; shouldn't it be discussed on one of the talk pages, possibly with a proposed merge, instead of here? WaggersTALK 08:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

    Non-EC editor editing ARBPIA, broadly construed.

    This is intended as a "heads-up", asking for admin eyes, and letting admins know what I have done. I noticed edits by OnuJones (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to 57th Infantry Regiment (Ottoman Empire) and Sinai and Palestine campaign, removing mentions of Palestine or changing Palestine to Israel. I have undone the edits. I have placed welcome/warning templates on their usertalk page, as advised when I asked recently on AN about a similar situation. The account in question was created on 4 December 2020, made two edits on that day, and then nothing until the three edits on the 7th January this year that caught my eye. I shall forthwith add {{subst:AN-notice}}~~~~ to their usertalk page. DuncanHill (talk) 23:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

    I don't think this really needs admin attention. Your CTOP notice suffices. If they continue making those kinds of edits, you can go to AE or ANI. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    I might have to reread the ARBPIA restrictions because these two edits are about incidents around World War I. I'm not sure they are covered by ARBPIA restrictions which I tend to remember are about contemporary events. Liz 02:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    I think the concern is that while the articles aren't ARBPIA per se, the edits (changing Palestine to Israel ) are clearly ARBPIA-motivated, as it were. (Even leaving aside the historical inaccuracy in that Israel didn't exist at the time!) - The Bushranger One ping only 03:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    I would consider the edits to be within the realm of WP:ARBPIA broadly construed. TarnishedPath 03:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    Those kinds of transparently false Palestine to Israel or Israel to Palestine edits should result in a block without warning and without any red tape in my view. They know what they are doing. People who edit in the topic area shouldn't have to waste their time on these obvious WP:NOTHERE accounts. Sean.hoyland (talk) 03:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    I guess I didn't make my meaning all that clear. Editors should not post to AN every time they warn a brand new account about a CTOP. It's a waste of everyone's time. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:29, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Voorts: It's not a brand new account, but presumably you didn't waste any of your time by actually reading my post. DuncanHill (talk) 18:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    I misstated that this was a new account, but an account with five edits that hasn't edited since before you warned them isn't really something that needs an AN thread. I apologize for my tone. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    Now an IP 2800:A4:C0F1:B700:D17E:5AEF:D26C:A9B (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been making similar edits, changing Palestine to Israel. DuncanHill (talk) 21:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

    Hide this racist edit.

    Different project, nothing for en.wikipedia.org admins to do. OP was pointed in the right direction. --Yamla (talk) 11:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    Hide the racist edit summary. It says bad words and it is stereotyping Romani people.

    https://rmy.wikipedia.org/Uzalutno:Contribuții/178.115.130.246 200.80.186.184 (talk) 08:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

    That's on the Romani Misplaced Pages, we only deal with the English one here. You'll need to raise that with the admins on that project. WaggersTALK 08:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    Please refer to m:SRM, if there are no active RMYWP admins available. Ahri Boy (talk) 11:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Admin prohibits to delete copyright links

    This has nothing to do with the English Misplaced Pages.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    In the following topic: MU Online Admin Egilus refuses to delete the following links that violate Copyright policies (links to pirated websites):

    Refers to "Community discussion", when the latest discussion about the page contents happened on 2008 and simple google is available to see which links are pirated and which are not. Nebraska Ivan (talk) 14:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    96.230.143.43

    This user is a frequent vandal on the page Devils Tower. I am requesting a block. Drdr150 (talk) 16:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

    Blocked. In the future, please use WP:AIV. Jauerback/dude. 16:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    Ah, very sorry. Drdr150 (talk) 17:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

    StoneX Group Inc.

    I’m concerned about the page at StoneX Group Inc.

    There are disclosed COI paid edits but the main problem I’m highlighting here is that the subject company appears to see that they have ownership of the page to the extent of adding obviously inappropriate stuff, see my most recent edit to remove it. I’m not sure of the correct procedure and was wondering if an admin could possibly have a polite word with those editors? Thanks. JMWt (talk) 17:06, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

    Have you tried discussing this with the COI editor? voorts (talk/contributions) 20:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

    Permissions Removal

    Hello, please remove my rollback and pending changes review permissions. Rollback is redundant because I have global rollback and I do not use the reviewer rights enough to warrant keeping them. Thank you! Ternera (talk) 20:03, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

    Done. Thank you. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    Category: