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 10:17, 17 January 2007 view sourceGiano II (talk | contribs)22,233 editsm →break 6← Previous edit Latest revision as of 09:16, 11 January 2025 view source Cactusisme (talk | contribs)195 edits →Import request: @Fram "oh, okay"  
Line 1: Line 1:
{{pp-sock|small=yes}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Header}}
<noinclude><!-- Inside the noinclude, because this page is transcluded. -->{{User:MiszaBot/config
|algo = old(7d)
|counter = 368
|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive%(counter)d
|maxarchivesize = 700K
|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|minthreadsleft = 0
}}{{short description|Notices of interest to administrators}}{{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Header}}</noinclude><!--S
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
|header={{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
|archiveprefix=Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive
|format=%%i
|age=48
|index=no
|numberstart=255
|minkeepthreads= 4
|maxarchsize= 700000
}}
--><!--


----------------------------------------------------------
<!-- BEGIN WERDNABOT ARCHIVAL CODE --><!-- This page is automatically archived by Werdnabot-->{{User:Werdnabot/Archiver/Linkhere}}<!-- This is an empty template, but transcluding it counts as a link, meaning Werdnabot is directed to this page - DO NOT SUBST IT --><!--Werdnabot-Archive Age-2 DoUnreplied-Yes Target-Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive70--><!--END WERDNABOT ARCHIVAL CODE-->
New entries go down at the *BOTTOM* of the page, not here.
{{User:HighInBCBot/OptIn|target=Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive index|mask=Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive<#>|leading_zeros=0|indexhere=no}}
----------------------------------------------------------


--><noinclude>
__NEWSECTIONLINK__

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


== Sander.v.Ginkel unblock request ==
== ] ==


The following is copied from ] on behalf of {{u|Sander.v.Ginkel}}:
Some time ago, a user created several hundred pages about a day (e.g. Dec 16 2005, as opposed to our regular articles like ]). These articles are redundant and ultimately unmaintainable, so it was suggested that they be deleted. Rather than creating several hundred noms, {{user|Fram}} created a single nom listing a handful, as linked above.
{{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.


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 ].
Now the point is that the arguments, and most people who commented, support removal of these articles. But, several people have argued that this is out of process. The problem with this line of thought is, that no matter ''how or where'' you want to discuss potential removal of these articles, there will always be people arguing that it was out of process. If you do it on AFD, people suggest CENT. Do it on CENT, and they'll request the village pump. And the village pump will ask you to get your {{tl|shrubbery}} at AFD.


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 ].}}
So I propose we look at the arguments rather than at whether or not it conforms to Da Rulez, close the AFD and remove these poorly thought-out articles. Thoughts please? ] 14:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
] (]) 18:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*Damn, we've had this transclusion debate before with WikiProject Cricket. I'm sure there's a policy somewhere that says we don't transclude in the article name space. My initial thoughts are that we cut out the forum shopping, but maybe run this one over for another week making that point clear and hope to develop a strong consensus. I'll try and find all the cricket discussion, it's about 18 months ago, I remember archiving it all together. That was one that spilled out onto the pump and cent as well, from what I remember. ] <small>]</small> 14:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
:'''Support unbanning and unblocking''' per ]. ] (]/]) 18:31, 15 December 2024 (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)
*'''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)
*It does look like a good-faith desire to return and work on Misplaced Pages. And I would just want to add that Misplaced Pages needs such a fruitful article creator. Especially since ] was severely trimmed several years ago, and probably thousands of sportspeople articles have since been deleted.<br />'''Support'''. (I am not an admin, so I am not sure I can vote. I can see some non-admins voting, but I'm still not sure.) --] (]) 14:26, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Conditional support unblock''' (non-admin vote- if I'm not allowed to vote then please just unbold this vote): add editing restriction for them to use ] for article creation, and this restriction can be reviewed in 6-12 months if their article creation has been good. Their article mass creation required one of the largest cleanup jobs I have seen on here, and we certainly wouldn't want the same mass-created quasi-notable articles created again. ]] (]) 17:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)


== Spider-Man: Beyond the Spider-Verse - draft article about a future film seems to be a long-term draft ==
:Just make them go away, Radiant!, please. --]<sup>g</sup> 14:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
:Aha, ] and ]. My gut is to push towards a merge and redirect to the monthly articles. ] <small>]</small> 14:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
**Analysis suggests that a redirect isn't necessary because there are little or no incoming links, and a merge isn't necessary because nearly all the relevant information is already in the more general articles like ]. ] 14:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
***Hmmm, I've had a look at a couple and seen incoming links, maybe ten an article. Protected redirects might stop future occurrences. ] <small>]</small> 14:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
These pages are probably in the main namespace because ] used to be in the main namespace. Several of them are still transcluded on other pages. I have suggested to move them all to subpages of ], as they might be archives of that page. Individual month pages like ] (a page consisting mostly of transclusions of articles included in the AFD) could also be moved out of article space. ] ] 14:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
**This might be the best suggestion. They do seem to be part of the current events format as was, and they get pushed out of the article space where they clearly don't belong. ] <small>]</small> 14:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
**yeah, they are a part of the current events portal, see ], that's made up of transcluded pages from the portal namespace. I'm leaning towards closing as moving to portal namespace on that basis. ] <small>]</small> 15:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
***This does seem like the best solution, and is unlikely to be controversial or require further discussion since it matched the current practice. ] ] 03:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
*Yay. Proto has now closed the debate, stating that there is consensus to delete them, but we must nevertheless tag every single article and discuss it further in some other forum (which will undoubtedly also reject it as "out of process"). I find this a rather bureaucratic approach, and it will likely not be productive. ] 15:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
**As stated on my talk page, someone will see a page is deleted they didn't know about, take all 1400 pages to DRV, and enough people would ask for them to be restored based on them not having been AFD tagged for them to be restored (as DRV is based on headcounting, inexplicably). If you want them to go through AFD, then tag them for AFD and do it properly. If you didn't want them to be AFD'd properly, why bring the articles to AFD? If you want them moved to the portal namespace, be bold and just move them instead of complaining about bureaucracy. I won't mind. ]<i>::</i><small>]</small> 16:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
***DRV is ''not'' based on headcounting, but on policy. ]|] 16:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
****This is not what people who close DRV discussions have told me. ]<i>::</i><small>]</small> 17:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
*****{{fact}} As ] says, ''Undeletion requests for inappropriate items do not succeed.''. What "inappropriate items" are is an exercise for the closing admin to decide, but ] is not an appropriate reason. There must be policy to support the undeletion, majority rules is not policy. ]|] 22:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
******] --]<sup>]</sup> 03:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I just wanted to say that since I started this thing (the AfD, not the articles), I'm willing to take every step deemed necessary, be it starting a ] discussion, posting on the Village Pump, or starting a new AfD with ''all'' (some 1,400) pages tagged: I'm also prepared to merge all articles into the month articles if that is the preferred solution, and to change all links to these pages (coming from article pages, not from user pages or talk pages) to better links (splitting in two parts usually). If any of these needs to be done, please drop me a note, and please also be patient since it is quite a big task obviously. I'm of course unable to do any of the needed admin tasks, be it deleting pages or merging histories. ] 09:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
*As mentioned above, one thing you could do right now that probably wouldn't be controversial is to just move ] to ]. On the plus side this wouldn't require any more discussion. ] ] 21:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
**But that would create cross-namespace redirects which would need to be deleted: further we would still need to decide what to do with all the redlinks this creates (in some cases correcting (i.e. dividing) the links, in some cases moving the parent pages (month/year) to the portal namespace as well. The latter would then necessitate the correction of several hundred redlinks per monthpage (e.g. ] has approx. 600 incoming links). All this may be what eventually needs to be done, but I'ld like this to be quite certain and agreed upon before I embark on such a move / delete / correct party (which I'm still willing to do!). ] 12:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


I have not come across a situation like ] before. Maybe this is fairly common and I have just missed it.
== {{User|Oden}} and ] ==


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.
] is doing useful and unthankful job of enforcing our increasingly more strict policies of the fair use image by patrolling old images. It is a delicate task there it is critical to explain users that how their images that were celebrated catch just a few months ago now are considered shameful policy violations. Obviously, the users should receive all the explanations over the policy changes, be encouraged to find the free equivalents of the fair use, there should be an honest dialog over their reasons while the free images are unsuitable for the articles. The most important the users should not feel that tagging of their images is a sort of a personal harassment or a vendetta. I am not sure Oden is doing a right thing in this respect. He has chosen to patrol the fair use images based on the uploader. Often he has a disagreement with a user, then "review" all his her image over years. As a result the uploader feels harassed and persecuted even if Oden's claims are valid. From the point of view of stimulating the search for free images mass tagging of images by a single uploader are counterproductive: if tagging one..two images per week stimulate users to find free substitutes or releasing the images under free copyright licenses, mass tagging just lead to apathy.


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.
Oden was many times warned by different admins not to violate ] and to be more thoughtful about user's feelings see ,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
I have counted at least five different admins and two prolific users in good standing. Still after all this warnings he behaves exactly the same. E.g. after a mild personal attack from . Oden within minutes started tagging Kuban's images: , , , , . He never had any ineterest in Kuban images. I wish to apply ] but it is difficult not to see the usage of copyright issues as a weapon in a personal conflict, the thing a few admins including me specifically asked Oden not to do. Very similar methods are used by Oden in his personal conflict with Irpen. Irpen is not a problem user out of hundreds of the images he uploaded only a couple were found wrong but he does not take the stalking lightly. I specifically asked Oden to leave irpen's upload log along. Still after all these warnings Oden is still bragging about searching this log .


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.
Guys, Oden is a very hardworking user and I do not want to block him, but the warnings do not have any effects so far. Can somebody talk with him and persuade him to change his modus operandi? ] 13:16, 11 January 2007 (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?
:Following a trail of contributions to find more violations is not stalking, in my opinion. Again, IMO, it is pure and simple that Oden is not in the wrong here; generally, people who breach WP:FU once do it again,and so looking back through a user's log is beneficial to the encyclopaedia. It seems, well, silly that you would consider blocking someone for it. Jimbo Wales and WMF take a dim view on bad FU images, and so should we - it doesn't matter how you find them. Cheers, '''] <sup>]&nbsp;·&nbsp;]&nbsp;]</sup>''' 13:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


<small>'''Edit:'''</small> Anyone got any thoughts on the concept of having a draft article for a film that doesn't meet ]?
::Seconded. If it appears to Irpen/Kuban/whoever as though they are being stalked, this will probably be because Irpen/Kuban/whoever is repeatedly uploading unfree images in breach of ]. ]<i>::</i><small>]</small> 14:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


] (]) 00:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:::'''Comment.'''As I've said before, Oden is one of the relatively moderate folks in the anti fair-use group. But it does seem more than a bit disruptive to specifically target the uploads of individual editors as he appears to be doing. Daniel: Jimbo's opinion on the matter is just another opinion. Jimbo himself has said that trying to support something with "Jimbo said" isn't a fair argument. The argument here isn't about bad fair use images but in how people are going about tagging them, and Machiavellian tactics aren't going to help promote goodwill and community in Misplaced Pages. It's rude and disruptive. Proto: By this logic, then if the police go and beat someone with truncheons and haul him off to jail, that automatically makes him guilty of crimes. It's not proper in a modern society to assume that if someone is punished, it automatically means that person was guilty. And regardless of whether an editor has uploaded fair use images, ] asks that we assume good faith, which you're not advocating. As has been mentioned many times and subsequently pooh-poohed by folks who want to implement RfU, a category page with an automatic list of all fair use images should be created and then whoever wants to go throug them can do so one by one. This would eliminate this semi-wikistalking thing, and if nothing else, would give the RfU taggers an out when someone complains about their image being tagged. Instead, folks seem to insist on doing it the hard way, making people angry, making them feel stalked and persecuted, causing disruption and seriously affecting efficiency and community. I don't know why this is, but it's very backward. ] 16:41, 11 January 2007 (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)
::::If you consider uploading fair use images after they have been removed and deleted because of breach of fair use to be vandalism, then there is no problem with his actions. When you find someone adding inappropriate external links to articles in your watchlist you usually check the user's contributions to see what else he has been doing. While I do not like "revenges" (in example, removing images because the editor who uploaded them has a conflict with you), if the images are correctly removed according to existing policy and the contributor reinserts them, he is also disrupting Misplaced Pages. -- ] 17:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
: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)
:::::TheQuandry: Are you aware that WMF/Jimbo may decide to step in and reform this process to reduce the number of FU breaches, as a Foundation edict? I was speaking to him yesterday about it, and if he does this, then his opinion '''does''' matter, very much so. It actually matters more than anyone else's, really. '''] <sup>]&nbsp;·&nbsp;]&nbsp;]</sup>''' 23:32, 11 January 2007 (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. ]]<sup>]</sup> 20:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::Yeah, I've always felt 90 days is sufficient for default archival purposes. If no one has contributed to a discussion in three months, it's a dead discussion. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 18:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)


== 43.249.196.179 (again) ==
::::::Daniel: If/when WMF and Jimbo step in and make an executive decision, then I suppose there will be no more room for debate. Until then, Jimbo has only shared his viewpoint and Jimbo himself has said many many times that it's not proper to invoke him like that. And as of this moment, neither Jimbo nor WMF have made a Foundation edict. ] 17:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


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)
#It's possible to stalk by making edits that would be perfectly reasonable under other circumstances, but which are being used to target and punish certain users. I'm not making any claims about this case, but just pointing out that if, for example, I were to be in conflict with ], and then trawled through his edits, correcting all his typing errors, placing (perfectly justified) wikify, cleanup, etc., templates on articles he'd created, and so on, I'd be behaving badly. My edits would be being made, not with the intention of improving Misplaced Pages, though they might do that, but with the primary purpose of harrassing ]. This has been (rightly in my view) condemned as wikistalking in the past. It's not always easy to distinguish from the perfectly proper business of following up a problem user's edits to tidy up after her &mdash; though when it follows immediately upon an attack in either direction, it's hard to give the benefit of the doubt.
:] 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)
#As I said, I have no real view about oden with regard to the stalking charge &mdash; but he ''has'' often carried out his purge of fair-use images insensitively and out of process, removing images from articles with vague edit summaries, and no previous warning message about the replacement of such images with properly licensed replacements, etc. He seems to have started taking his job personally, and that usually leads to problems. I don't think that he should be blocked or anything like that, but he does need to be talked to, and persuaded to slow down and behave towards other editors with proper consideration, and within Wikipdia policies. --] (]) 23:49, 11 January 2007 (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)
Oden's actions are definitively not stalking as per the letter or spirit of that policy. If a contributor doesn't understand image policy, it's likely that they've uploaded other images incorrectly and thus reasonable to go through their contribution history and take the appropriate action. Image tagging is quite thankless work, yet essential to the project both legally and in the spirit of a ''free'' encyclopedia. Alex, I would suggest that you focus your efforts on helping affected users understand the image policies rather than disparaging Oden, who has done nothing wrong, imho. It's neither rude nor disruptive to correct users who violate Misplaced Pages's image policies. If they upload 100 images incorrectly, then all of them should be dealt with in as polite a manner as possible. Oden should use appropriate edit summaries and ''notify'' users, but he doesn't necessarily have to "slow down" (i.e. only tag one inappropriate image per user per day). ] 05:44, 12 January 2007 (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)
:::Honestly, whether that was a Joe Job or not, your behavior is indistinguishable from trolling & deserves a block. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 18:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)


== Incivility at ] ==
:I think that you either ignored or dismissed what I said about stalking. Also, why do you think that "slow down" means only tagging one image a day? The point is that his lack of courtesy and proper explanation of his actions is probably the result of trying to do too much; if he slowed down, he'd have time to do things in a way that didn't put people's backs up.
:In response to what was said in response to a previous discussion of this, I probably am a little out of date concerning the hysteria with which this issue is treated in Misplaced Pages now. Perhaps the hysteria is justified by the U.S. obsession with litigation, I don't know.* Still, the idea that, for example, an image that depicts the subject of an article is inappropriate for an encyclop&aelig;dia, being "merely decorative", is so at odds with every encyclop&aelig;dia that I've ever seen that I wonder if those involved have lost sight of what we're supposed to be doing, at least in their ''explanations'' of their actions.
::<nowiki>*</nowiki><small>The ] bear swords that glow blue in the vicinity of lawyers...</small> --] (]) 10:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


@] 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)
::I think the discussion here may have turned away from the topic at some point: we're not debating the right or wrong of RfU, we're questioning the behavior of an editor who, to my eyes, is pretty clearly using this RfU issue as a way to get back at perceived enemies. According to comments towards the top, if someone has uploaded one or two fair use images that can be replaced, they probably have uploaded more. Out of hundreds of images uploaded by Irpen, Oden found a whopping TWO that were questionable enough for him to tag.
::I STRONGLY disagree with ] telling Alex ''I would suggest that you focus your efforts on helping affected users understand the image policies rather than disparaging Oden...'' This is a misguided and out-of-touch argument. Just because you think Oden's results are in line with RfU, it justifies wikistalking, Alex should shut up and we should happily allow good editors with multitudes of mainspace contributions to be subject to retribution when they criticise someone's political motives? This whole thing is completely ridiculous. Apparently, the folks doing the "thankless job of tagging images" are incapable of doing wrong. ] 08:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


:This looks to me like it's covered by ]. ] ] 02:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
I have blocked Oden for 48 h after the new incidence of stalking. He was blocked by ] for the 3RR violation. I have unblocked Oden, since he promised not to edit war. In minutes after my unblocking Oden started "examining upload logs" of CBurnett (see ]) and started a lot of other activities harrassing CBurnett (just see the last seven sections of CBurnett's talk page). This is an exact definition of ]. Since Oden was warned by a number of admins (see my starting message) and since this sort of behavior was already discussed on a number of fora (see ,
: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)
,
::{{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)
something should be done. ] 22:18, 15 January 2007 (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)
::::::::::::]. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 18:50, 10 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)
:I agree. I wasn't aware that Oden has such a history of basically the same set of actions, but I think he took it too far with me. If his actions against me aren't considered stalking then I hate to be the receiving end of ''real'' stalking. ] 22:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


:Agreed. An admin got involved and simply continued off-topic discussion. ] (]) 21:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::I think the behavior has been overlooked and defended because Oden is seen as "implementing an unpopular and thankless task". Whether or not you agree with the implementation of RfU as per Oden and others, we must not ignore other problems or misbehaviors by someone just because they're seen as implementing an unpopular policy. Hopefully, Oden will take some time to reflect on this and implement RfU in a more evenhanded manner. ] 03:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Warn both to drop the stick''', otherwise, no action at this point. ] (]) 15:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*:'''''Hands ] two ]''''' You want to hand them out, or me? ] (]) 16:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC)


== Insults, personal attacks and reverts of academic material ==
== Myriad articles on bootleg albums ==
{{atop|1=This appears to be done. - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:51, 7 January 2025 (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)
{{user|Filthy113}} is creating dozens of articles on bootleg releases (kind of an oxymoron) from the band ]. Since bootlegs are generally neither terribly notable nor really verifiable, they're getting tagged for deletion right and left, though I'm not sure there's really a speedy category that applies. Anyone have any thoughts on action that should/could be taken? Doesn't appear to be responding in any way to notes on User Talk page. ] 02:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
{{abot}}
* Nuke the lot. Bootleg albums are by nature almost without exception undocumentable per policy (]) and guideline (]). <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 02:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
**Neither ] or ] are speedy criteria. However, ] may be applicable here.--]<sup>g</sup> 02:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
::: Hey, there are ''rules''? <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 02:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
::Hmmm waste time in AFD or invoke "Speedy per SNOW"? ---] <small>(]/]/])</small> 09:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
::: I think the answer is in the question. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 21:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


== Topic ban appeal ==
Some bootlegs are notable, but one should be able to present sources about them. ] 21:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC) (this was me; somehow I got logged out. ] (]:]) 21:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC))
:Pretty sure this is a case where <nowiki>{{db|custom reason}}</nowiki> can be applied. Admins can use common sense to judge whether articles so tagged can be speedily deleted. ] 03:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


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)
== Return of the editing of hexspeak articles ==


: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)
{{user|Hexspeak}} has been returning a variety of articles that were redirected per a previous issue as cited in . I suspect that {{user|BlakeCS}} is probably a sockpuppet of this person, but I cannot say for certain, and I am not totally keen on going through with a check.
::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)
*'''Oppose''' I want to see some real world effort working collaboratively somewhere else on wp, not just a six month gap waiting it, off wikipedia. There is no evidence here that there has been a change. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black; font-family:Papyrus">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 08:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC)


== Request to Fix Redirect Title: Camden stewart ==
What should we do about this person who is just repeating the same stuff over and over again? The weird thing is that the person is applying the <nowiki>{{sprotected}} and {{protected}}</nowiki> tags on there to deter anyone from editing them. :: <em>]</em> <font color="red">'''(])'''</font> 06:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
{{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)
:Check through contributions reveal that most of them have already been re-redirected back to the main article (user talk page shows that VoA Bot II did most of the work). I did laugh on the userpage: "They contain tigers. They are semi-protected. They are not vandalism." ] 06:41, 13 January 2007 (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!" ] (]) 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 ==
::Yeah. I ended up reverting his edits and warning him not to continue and to discuss his ideas here. I really don't see why he is doing this, as the magic numbers topic is good enough. :: <em>]</em> <font color="red">'''(])'''</font> 06:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
"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:
I removed the ones which are not referenced on the target article. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 14:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
- caused many edit wars <br/>
:What can you make of BlakeCS' user page? He seems to have all of those hexspeak articles preloaded on his user page. I saw an edit to his user page, and thought he had redid all of the articles. But in fact, after changing one of his pages to a redirect, I realised it was a sub-page. :: <em>]</em> <font color="red">'''(])'''</font> 15:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
- deleted citations along with deleting correct claims <br/>
:I ended up putting them up for MfD. :: <em>]</em> <font color="red">'''(])'''</font> 08:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- not been cooperative (wikipedia's ]) on many pages that good-] edits have occurred on <br/>
Doesn't he break some sort of rule by recreating deleted content? ] (]) 14:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- 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 ===
== Threatening language on user page ==
:: <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>
User:Mr.Choppers has not followed the ] rules because: <br/>
'''-''' calling me a "nuisance" because of own ] supporting others in ] that have nothing to do with the user. ] ] <br/>
'''-''' responded fairly aggressively to another user (me) without me being aggressive back or starting this edit war <br/>
'''-''' note that he also called me a "sockpuppet of a banned user" without reliable clarification, also biased on that <br/>
'''-''' also note the user had not informed me and used aggression to support own claims. <br/>
<br/>
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)
: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)


== Proposal to vacate ECR remedy of Armenia and Azerbaijan ==
{{user|Cindery}} has some vague threats on her user page... I realise I'm not neutral in the matter, so I'm bringing it here to get a neutral view and to let someone who isn't in a dispute with her pursue the matter further. Here's what it said on her user-page (It's in the third person)
{{atop|1=Already closed. - ] <sub>]</sub> 01:36, 4 January 2025 (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)
{{abot}}


== Cannot draftify page ==
"If you vandalize ] or ], someone will probably send her an email--and she will probably deal with you off-wiki."
{{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}}


== Remove PCR flag ==
Now, no one likes vandalism, but is making threats of (''fill in the blank'') is a good idea? ---] <small>(]/]/])</small> 08:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
{{atop|1=Flag run down. - ] <sub>]</sub> 18:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}}
:I would endorse a good length block, but I cannot make it, since I am not uninvolved. User has been blocked before for making personal attacks against me and for sockpuppetry. She has already stated that she does not want to contribute any more to the encyclopedia, but wants to ensure that ''I'' get desysopped. She continues her disruption to this date. &ndash; . &mdash; ] 08:49, 13 January 2007 (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)
:Well... Nether of us are unbiased so I'll just leave it at that and let someone else evaluate if the user-page comment is OK or not. I invited Cindery to the conversation to either take the intuitive and change it on her own or offer a defence for keeping it. ---] <small>(]/]/])</small> 09:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
:Done. ] (]) 06:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::Honestly, I think that's a little too vague of a threat for us to act on it. It's so vague that I'm not sure it's even a threat. But I'll let others chime in. I will say that I'm not familiar with her behavior, so this might be her way of threatening people. Just my 2 cents. --]<sup>]</sup> 12:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
{{abot}}
:::Unfortunately, I don't recall the exact nature of the past disruption -- I remember that there's been a (confirmed) checkuser case or two, some AN/I threads, and such. The language of current relevance isn't exactly friendly, but unless it seems to be directed at a particular person, I'm not sure if doing something about it would do anything besides inflame the situation (if similar language were used on a talk page, or especially user talk, my story might be different). Will give links if/when I dig up any pertinent information. ] 12:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
::::I'd agree. Or if it was something more substantial such as a specific threat. --]<sup>]</sup> 13:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


== "The Testifier" report ==
Cindery is certainly not a calming influence. Look at ] for example. I would say that this is a direct threat aimed at Nick and Dmcdevit. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 17:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
{{Moved discussion to|Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#"The Testifier" report| ] (]/]) 18:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}}
:It refers entirely to ] and his alternate IPs, with regards to Joshua Clover (who is also mentioned at Barrington Hall). It is something you should email Sam Blanning about. (which is what I have done and will do again if Swkap reappears.)-] 18:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
:: So that's ''two'' problems then. First, threatening language on your user page; second, it's clumsily written so the target is not obvious. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 19:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
:::Only one user has ever been blocked for vandalizing Joshua Clover--it's pretty specific. Naming him on my userpage isn't a good idea, because I think he could be encouraged by such attention, and it would draw unneeded attention to the sad case of Swkap. (About which, the less said the better.) Leaving a vague notice that my absence doesn't mean he is now free to vandalize Joshua Clover preventively protects not just Joshua, but Misplaced Pages (I think he does look at my userpage, but doesn't read ANI, etc.) It is not a good idea to discuss this on-wiki, and I urge to you to email Sam (the admin who blocked Swkap, and with whom Swkap has corresponded via email) if you would like to discuss it further.-] 20:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
:::: Or you could just say nothing, on the basis that everyone who needs to know, already does. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 20:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
(undent) Sam indef blocked Swkap as a vandalism-only account, and then accidentally unblocked him because he didn't notice that Swkap's email requesting unblock on the grounds that he wasn't Swkap came from Swkap. Sam stated that he couldn't re-instate the indef block until Swkap struck again, but would reblock immediately. In the absence of a permablock of Swkap, there's cause for concern. It is to the benefit of all that Swkap knows I will not abandon concern for that article, even if I left Misplaced Pages entirely.-] 20:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


== Problem with creating user talk page ==
:Yeah, but why the vague threats of off-wiki retribution? That seems totally inappropriate. ---] <small>(]/]/])</small> 21:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
{{atop
::Because it discourages Swkap from misusing Misplaced Pages to try to hurt/get attention from/harass people he knows in real life, which is what he was doing. If promised response to him is off-wiki, email straight to Sam etc., he doesn't get any on-wiki attention/there's nothing in it for him to abuse/vandalize Misplaced Pages again.-] 21:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
| result = CU blocked as sock by {{noping|Spicy}}. ] (]/]) 01:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I do not think that using threatening language for off-wiki retribution is/was good judgment on your part. &mdash; ] 12:31, 14 January 2007 (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 think the evidence that it was good judgement is that Swkap has not returned, even though I have posted a wikibreak notice. But speaking of good or bad judgement, is there some reason you are ignoring the Foundation:, after you removed 70+ links with AWB yesterday, citing "licensing information per EL"?-] 16:36, 14 January 2007 (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)
Can't speak for Nick, but he's not "ignoring the Foundation"; the quote you linked from Barberio is to support his/your position (see the in question). ] 18:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
::I think it stands for "Battle for Dream Island". See ]. ] (]) 14:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Ah, I wondered if it was linked to ]. ]] 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. ] ] 18:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::This particular account was ]. ] (]) 01:04, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Administrators' newsletter – January 2025 ==
== Problematic userpage ==


] from the past month (December 2024).
] has been asked by admins to remove polemical pages, and also had a sockpuppet that he claims was unintentional ]. He has since moved said material to free hosting and has linked to it from his user page. Inclusive of this is a list of Wikipedians who he believes are Masons (self-identified or not), and a whole lot of disinformation and propaganda (which, he lists as "BANNED ON WIKIPEDIA" as if it were a personal issue rather than a policy violation on his part). I would also imagine that the other subpages he had here, which were also full of the same, have also been moved. Is there a way to do something about this officially or otherwise? ] 03:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


<div style="display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap">
:Remove the link? The userpage is still being abused, regardless of whether the content is hosted on it or linked to externall.y -- ] <small>(])</small> 06:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
<div style="flex: 1 0 20em">
::You would think so, but said user did exactly what I expected, which is rv your link removal as "vandalism by another user." So what's the next step? ] 17:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
:::It looks like he may have cleaned up the page, removing the things about freemasonry, paganism, and whatnot. If you still want to, or if he steps it back up, you'll probably want to take it it ] or follow the ] guidelines. -- ] <small>(])</small> 19:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
::::Yes and no. He edited Badbilltucker's title on BBT's comments regarding the subpage deletion to add in a link to the Geocities page, both on ] and ], which I have removed. If it comes back, I'll go to ANI. ] 05:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::Yes, on December 13, 2006 I added a link. Ms Japan I can see that my page of notes on ] has upset you greatly. That's too bad. I didn't realize that quotes about Freemasonry by the likes of ], ''The London Daily Telegraph'', and ]; a list of religions that find masonry opposed to ]; and a list of Misplaced Pages Freemasons who all identify themselves as such and who even list themselves under a Freemasonry category would cause so much angst for you and yours. The page no longer exists on Misplaced Pages so your problem should be over. You believe that you are teaching me a lesson, I guess because you feel that you are so superior to me. Actually, you have taught me a lesson. Some Freemasons are '''''very afraid''''' of exposure! Good luck in your cause. ] 15:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


] '''Administrator changes'''
:Dwain, please do not release any personal information about other wikipedians, on or off the wiki. It is rude and a violation of privacy. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 15:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
:] ]
::What personal information are you talking about? The fact that he is a mason? The fact that he has written about me learning a lesson or the apparent fact he is afraid? I'm confused. He has been going after me for awhile now. I'm not releasing any personal information on anyone it is already on record in Misplaced Pages. ] 16:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
}}
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}


] '''CheckUser changes'''
:If the information was already public then it is not a violation of privacy. But really, what does it have to do with writing an encyclopedia? ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 16:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
:] {{hlist|class=inline
::I don't know how much you know about the whole issue. But as far as my page on ] went I had some collected notes on freemasonry. Some were quotes and some was info on what sects declared it incompatible with Christianity. I was hoping that some of this material would be allowed some inclusion in some of the various articles concerning freemasonry. However, I discovered soon enough that several editors of these articles were determined not to allow this information into the articles and would remove it. So I left it on my page. After noticing that these editors seemed to be defending freemasonry and trying to put it in a good light I started to see exactly wo they were and discovered that most of them claimed to be masons themselves. Now everything I learned about masonry says that they will not reveal what they profess and do within their temples. Further members are said to swear that tey will lie to protect the craft. This would seem to explain why any negative info that gets into an article is down played or refuted within the article. This explains why they won't allow links to webpages that were created by former members who tell what freemasonry is actually about. They try to discredit people and remove info they don't like even on te userpages. If they are deliberately shhaping articles to down play any negative info and to put their organization into a good light, then this is very apropos to my questions. They successfully removed my page which pointed out that members are sworn to lie to defend the organization. Did you know that members of ] are not allowed to be Freemasons? This is because they are suppose to do the things I just outlined and are therefore not trustworthy. Apparently, Misplaced Pages admins don't care whether the information in these articles are accurate. Because I was reluctant to remove my Freemasonry page, my userpage was attacked by vandals like this: Whenever I wrote to and admin asking for guidence Ms Japan would follow and leave messages. These articles do not reflect reality, but reflect Mason propaganda. I think it is improtant to note this. They think it is important to prevent this info from coming out! Why? I don't stop people critizing my edits, or the ] or Bishops. But they will not allow me to bring up that Masons swear to lie and that the lower level masons are lied to as to what their symbols actually mean, so even if they break their oaths they might not be putting down accurate info. This is why even with all the harrassment from Ms Japan and the anons who have been vandalizing my pages is not going to stop me from getting the word out. In fact, it is making me more determined than ever. ] 20:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
|]
:::Dwain can believe whatever he wants, but the arguments have been disproven in numerous sources, even those written by non-Masons. It is the obvious desire to push that POV on others and disseminate incorrect information (with other people's names on it) that concerns me. To say that whatever a Mason (or anyone in any group, for that matter) says about his or her own group is obviously a lie or propaganda because someone else doesn't believe it is a tautology. However, as Dwain isn't open to discussion on the matter, things end up here. ] 00:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
|]
::::You have been caught lying twice now Ms Japan! Here you say I'm "not open to discussion," ] and on December 13, 2006 you say, "I attempted to open a discussion with said user about this page, and the end result was that my comments were removed from his talk page with no dialogue being opened." These are both false statements. For discussion and dialogue was forth coming from me here: ] on November 7, 2006. ''Both are lies!'' And you wonder why I would question your edits? I tried to placate the numerous anonymous users as well as Ms Japan by editing things out of my note page on freemasonry but that wasn't enough. I moved my page off Misplaced Pages and still he's obviously afraid, hence this listing. It's funny that Ms Japan should fear the words of Albert Pike and John Salza both having been masons!!! ] 03:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
|]
|]
|]
}}
:] ]
:] ]


</div>
==What to do about images tagged for 7 days and deleted, then re-uploaded==
<div style="flex: 1 0 20em">
I'm talking about images that are tagged as having no fair use rationale, no source, no copyright tag, etc. that are tagged for a week and deleted, then re-uploaded without satisfying the conditions required for keeping. An example I found is ], which was recently deleted as being tagged without a fair use rationale for over a week and then re-uploaded (by a different user), under the same name as the original, still without a fair use rationale. This would technically not be speedyable from my understanding since recreation of deleted content is only speedyable after an XfD, which images that are deleted via this process do not go through. On the other hand, if we allowed this it would be a loophole people could exploit to repeatedly upload an image and not have it deleted for a week. ] 11:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
]
:It was uploaded more than a week ago ''originally'', correct? And no improvement has been made to its licensing statements in that time, correct? In that case, ]. --] <small>]</small> 11:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
::Well, it is easier to extend that logic in this particular instance since it was re-uploaded under the same name. But what about a different name, or an almost identical picture but technically different one? ] 11:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
:::We regularly speedy delete articles that are things like ] and then reposted as ]. Images should be the same way. The title is nothing but what filename it's being stored as on the server, it's the same content. If the image were slightly different, that might be ] grounds for waiting a week, but if the uploader is being incorrigible just speedy delete it anyway. --] <small>]</small> 11:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
If it was a recreation of a speedy delete, you can't delete it under G4 "recreation of deleted material", but you can use another criterion to delete it, including the same one that speedied it in the first place, if the conditions are still the same. ] 12:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
:Remember that 'speedy' deletions of images involve a seven-day delay. So, the question is,do we have to let the 'speedy' deletion run its course for a re-upload of the same image? -- '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' 14:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
::I don't think that's necessary. ] 15:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


] '''Oversight changes'''
== Unwatched pages ==
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}
:] ]


</div>
Approximately how many pages are there in ], or is it kept empty? ]</font><small>]</font></small> 12:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
</div>
* Heh! What a lot of redlinks I got before I purged the cache... <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 14:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
:*Only the first thousand are viewable, and lets just say that that doesn't even get through the '1's. <tt>;-)</tt> ] <sup>]</sup> 01:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
::'''Wow''' I would have thought it would be much smaller. Haha someone should make Wikiproject unwatched. ]</font><small>]</font></small> 02:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
:::I occasionally entertain myself by culling the pages that begin with symbols (which are usually garbage), either deleting, redirecting or moving them. I tend to lose faith in humanity by the time I've gotto the start of the '0's, but that first part is pretty well patrolled. Personally, I would allow unwatchedpages to be seen by everyone, as 90% of vandal fighting is done via recent changes, anyway, and the benefits of getting some of these cleared up (a lot of the unwatched pages are also garbage) would outweight the risks of letting people know which pages aren't watchlisted. ]<i>::</i><small>]</small> 13:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
::::If everyone can see it then I would suggest only after 4 days like the ability to move pages. I'm quite interested by that list and I might put in an RfA soon so I can dive in. ]</font><small>]</font></small> 03:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


] '''Guideline and policy news'''
:For those who are curious, when I just looked, the 1,000th (and last visible) page on the list was ]. It's on my watchlist now, so don't even think of vandalizing it. :-) —] <small>(])</small> 01:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
* 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'''
== Request for opinions on block ==
* 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'''
There's a discussion at the moment at ] on which I'd be grateful for admins' input. The "callous personal attack" which appalled the original poster was:
* A ] is happening in January 2025 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles and redirects in the ]. ]
:"Its about time you had a weekend off, its all you ever seem to be doing(going on wikipedia)."
This, together with a few other examples, most of them no worse, some even more innocuous, has led ] to issue ] (] <small>•</small> ]) with a four-day block. That seems to me to be outrageous. I'm inclined to lift the block as unwarranted, both in fact and in extent, but I'd like to get other opinions first. --] (]) 17:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
:Well, I'm looking at the block log, and I see that said user has been blocked four other times for personal attacks and/or disruption. ] ] 17:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
::All in a period of less than two months. --] 17:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


----
Yes, but for what? I haven't done all the work necessary to find out, but if the earlier blocks were as poorly justified as this one, I'd say that they were also unjustified. Anyway, the main point is that nothing he's said this time warrants a block, in my opinion. --] (]) 17:18, 14 January 2007 (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 ==
:Ahh this is here too. Just for the record, the block was for the compounded reasons that the user was fully warned(warning which were removed), had been blocked for the same thing in the past couple months 3 times, the several example of incivility were all from the last few days, and the fact that the user was uncivil right after being warned, while I was reviewing is contribs. Is 4 days really such a long block? It seems minor considering the week long block the user received in December for the same thing. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 17:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
{{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.
#Removing warnings from a User's Talk page is not a blockable offence.
#It doesn't matter how many times someone has been blocked for an offence; even if the earlier blocks were justified, the new block has to be too. The definition of incivilty doesn't get weaker just because someone has been uncivil before.
#Given that the comments are so mild, barely uncivil at all, the fact that they were made right after a civility warning is irrelevant. --] (]) 17:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


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 ].
Per point 1, I agree, however it does reveal if the person was knowledgable of the policy.
Per point 2, I disagree, a user being block for the same thing over and over is a clear indication of unwillingness to follow policy
Per point 3, I disagree again, continued incivility past warnings is a blockable offense. You seem to be of the opinion that someone can be just a little bit uncivil as long as they want, I do think the amount of incivility plays a part.


'''Diffs:''' ''(all timestamps UTC. NB that I am in England => UTC+00:00, Uwappa is in Australia => UTC+10:00 ) ''
My point is that a user that is ignoring warnings and continuing to violate policy needs to be blocked. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 17:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
* : 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''
:I'm afraid that your view of point two goes against Misplaced Pages and natural justice. You seem to have misunderstood my third point, though, so perhaps you misunderstood the second point too. --] (]) 17:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


* Uwappa reinstates their counter-reversion of the template.
OK, I've just left this on his Talk page:
* 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.


---
:The block, I still hold, was unjustified on the basis of the evidence offered. However, ] has explained the background of this, with regard to your behaviour towards her (and I've seen your , and although four days is a lot, I don't feel like helping you out over this. I agree with Asterion that you need to start behaving and writing like a considerate adult. Perhaps when the four days are up you'll rethink how you interact with others. --] (]) 17:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
* At Uwappa's talk page, JMF suggests that we let the status quo stand and we all walk away without escalating to ANI.
* Uwappa replies to refuse de-escalation.


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)
== Curious behavior on an article on AFD ==


: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)
Yesterday evening, I placed ] on AFD. This morning, while I was checking for related changes in ], I noticed that ] copied the entire article to his talk page with the comment ''"For use if deleted."'' added to the top. This is a rather strange thing to do for an article on AFD and gets me wondering if he plans on recreating the article later. --''']''' (]) 17:59, 14 January 2007 (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)


Reposted above from archive, see ]
It's not really that odd - he could be doing it because he feels that in it's current state, it's sure to be deleted but he wants to work on it so that he can try and recreate an improved article some time down the road. Have you actually asked him about it? --] 18:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


JMF suggested to add the following bit from my talk page:
:Not unless I restore his original talk page, which he blanked while copying the article. --''']''' (]) 23:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


::::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)
== Proposal for a community sanction ==
:::::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? ] (]) 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)
{{user|Mugaliens}}, formerly (to a very high degree of probability) {{user|Dr1819}} seems to be just fine as long as he does not go anywhere near ], ] or any other article related to the wearing of skirts and/or heels by men. See also ]. I'd suggest we simply ban him from those articles and their Talk pages, because past experience indicates that he will never give accept consensus that conflicts with his rather firm views. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 23:24, 14 January 2007 (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? - ] <sub>]</sub> 08:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:I've also some experience with this individual and his... idiosyncratic... opinions on male fashion, but I don't think what you propose is by any means necessary. He hasn't made any objectionable edits lately, it seems, and appears to by and large abide by consensus on the contents of the pages you mention. My advice would also be to just ignore ]; it's going nowhere and is a waste of your time. ] 20:59, 15 January 2007 (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)


== Will someone please reinvite Germanium? ==
He was banned for editing an article and saying that the definition of one thing divided by nothing (1/0) is that it is an absolute and perfect non-cancelling combination of + and - infinity, something that is self-balanced and united as in the spirit of everything unified together, ala a theory of everything. Much like the complete and dynamic corrolation held in the eastern idea of yin and yang. Germanium would like to be reinvited so that he can teach us more about this line of thinking which leads to a perpetual source of energy and absolute abundance - a wonderful and unignorable chance for peace on earth{{unsigned|68.114.185.27}}


: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)
Looking at the edits from your IP address, would I would wrong to assume you are Germanium? --] 00:37, 15 January 2007 (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)
Yes, I am he{{unsigned|68.114.185.27}}
*: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)
*::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)
from the sound of it (and looking at your contributions), that's just a recipe to add various bits of wacky original research. What's the purpose of an unblock, if the intention is to carry on as before? Is the intention just to carry on adding your own theories on things? --] 00:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
* 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)
:As you were told, you were banned for posting ] - you clearly were posting your own theories. If you would acknowledge Misplaced Pages's policy on the matter, and promise to stop, you could certainly be unblocked. -]<sup>]|]</sup> 00:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
:History of earlier actions can be found in in the section entitled "Gödel's incompleteness theorems". Also see ]. Author in question seems unable or unwilling to accept the basic principles of ]. I see no reason for unblocking {{user5|Germanium}}, and think blocking {{user|68.114.185.27}} may be appropriate. ] 00:58, 15 January 2007 (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=]}}.
{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"
:* Suggestion: Add the following calculator to ]:
|-
! style="background-color: #f2dfce;" | Rantings of Germanium
|-
| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
With all due respect it's plAIN and simple!!! 1/0 is the point on the number circle directly across from 0 and where + and - infinity meet. I'm absolutely positively negatively sure of it for crying ot loud!!! Now if you think I had to do original research to figure that out then you have got to be kidding me. Do you think it's difficult or something? It's all spelled out for you in the incompleteness theorem and the real projective line (and the axiom of choice, etc. etc. etc.). It's nothing new, it's just that people are so pessimistic they don't care or they think it's bogus. But what are they afraid of???


{{calculator|id=edits|type=number|steps=1|size=3|default=3|min=0}}
Don't you want me to show you how it proves the existence of an ultimate energy source??? Don't you want to see how we can build practical technology right now that will save our hopeless asses? Don't you want to know how to build a spaceship that will take us anywhere at more than infinite speed? Are you kidding me? You want to ban me? What do they cALL that, like looking a gift horse in the mouth or something? Well this is 10 times worse than that. I swear if God himself were to walk up and give you the answer you would tell him to go home. I'm sick and tired of that shit. It's time for you wikipedians to swallow your pride and acknowledge that someone has come along to help you. You are, afterall, lucky for that.{{unsigned|68.114.185.27}}
{{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 think that's our answer folks - I suggest an IP ban - no point continuing this conversation. --] 01:22, 15 January 2007 (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)
::Good name for a group, that. :) ] 04:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
:Agreed. He's so convinced of his rightness that Misplaced Pages rules are irrelevant to him, and he has no intention, or even consideration, of respecting them. ] 01:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
:I certainly don't want to see this talk page fill up with OR. -- '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' 01:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Gone. -- ] 01:31, 15 January 2007 (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.
== Another possible POV to watch for ==
: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)
{{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 ==
We've got the corporate PR types trying to put their spin on their corporate articles, it looks like labour has discovered - might be a good idea to keep an eye out for POV'ness and ] on any article where labour disputes are underway -- ] 03:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
*{{userlinks|Oct13}}
*That's fairly blatant. Dandy. Would that kind of work fall under the COI guidelines, considering they're suggesting focusing on the union message in labour disputes? ] <small>]</small> 06:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
**] is a policy of long standing. ] 12:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


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)
:I also notice they seem to get the impression we're a "company" (However I may have misread that). ] 13:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
::Aren't we? ] :P ] (]) 14:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


:Discussion at ]. ] (]) 12:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
I did notice he said he added a paragraph "filled with links to the company's website", in other words, the edits he made were sourced and (presumably) verifiable. He also advocates discussion on talk pages when challenged, which is also good. The only troubling thing I saw was persistent use of the definite article with the name "Misplaced Pages". It always makes me shudder when people say "the Misplaced Pages". —]] 10:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
:I've reverted the addition of the template. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 12:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
: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)
== Removing images on sight ==


: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 have started removing images which I tag as copyright infringements or policy violations from the article pages. The reason for this is that our hard-working administrators sometimes forget to remove the images from the article pages before deleting them. Ever so often I encounter dead links to deleted images ( ). Leaving a red link for a month is not very pretty, and certainly must appear confusing for some of our readers. There is also the possibility that the deleted media will be uploaded again by a user following the red link.
::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)
This matter was also discussed at ] (]). I will continue removing tagged images on sight, while still staying within ] if the deletion is contested (except for egregious errors). --] 07:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
::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 ==
:And I quote from ]:
{{atop|1=User wants to use Misplaced Pages as a social network. ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}}
::''It does not grant users any right to three reverts every 24 hours or endorse reverts as an editing technique, it is '''not an entitlement''', but an "electric fence". ''
Hello, I find that {{user|Ottawahitech}} has opened an appeal about their talk page restriction.
:Emphasis is '''not''' mine. ] 16:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


:Who authorized you to "have started removing images which tag as copyright infringements or policy violations from the article pages"? Isn't that the job of the Administrator who closes the IfD debate on a particular image? I think you are too bold in doing so. -- ] 22:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


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>
OrphanBot already removes links to images that have been tagged as lacking source or licensing information. There's no reason for a human editor to waste time doing so. —]] 10:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
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)
== Reference desk (Misc) ==


:This might be better at ]. — ] (]) 15:12, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
I do not want to single any individual editors out but I'm a little concerned (maybe that's too strong of a word) about the Reference desk/Miscellaneous (the others could be similar I haven't looked) and what could be developing there. There seem to be a number of editors who seem to post only to that board and in a manner more suitable for general forums than an encylopedia. Not asking for any particular course of action but if a few people could keep it on their radar... --] 10:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
::Moved per request] 15:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
* This is a long-standing problem. I am also rather surprised that we tolerate the "sandboxians" who engage in anumber of behaviours explicitly forbidden within the project, such as writing original fiction. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 11:09, 15 January 2007 (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)
**We should probably dump original fiction on MFD. ] 12:10, 15 January 2007 (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)
***I believe that ] is talking about the people whose sole activity here is to use ] ''itself'' as a chat room or a free wiki hosting service. But yes, there are ''other'' pages such as ], ], and ] that appear to have no benefit to the project whatsoever. However, see ]. ] 12:57, 15 January 2007 (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)
****Since there appears to be a concerted effort to ruin my argument by deleting my examples, I shall trawl ] again, to turn up ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], and ]. So there! &#9786; ] 17:40, 16 January 2007 (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 ==
== RfCs ==


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.
I have archived an RfC: ]. Durova had already provided a summary. I made {{tl|rfc top}} and {{tl|rfc bottom}} from the AfD templates. I think we should do more of this; RfCs that ramble on for ever and never reach closure or a conclusion are a problem. Is this a thing worth doing? <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 12:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
*I don't recall ever seeing an RFC that had a useful conclusion or a constructive result, other than blowing off steam. So probably not. ] 12:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
:: ] reached a conclusion. But why would it be a problem to archive stale RfCs rather than leave them open indefinitely? <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 13:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
:::I agree with Guy: it should be made clear when an RfC is closed via some templates (or, preferably, templates plus an explanation that provides some closure for the participants, but that may be impossible). "Closing" RfCs will stop people adding to stale RfCs when they should open a new one instead. ] ] 13:44, 15 January 2007 (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)
:::: just as a general comment - I've never seen much of a purpose for RFC (in regards to editors) as the actual practice seems to be "Request to whine like fuck and drag up all and every little slight in the history of wikipedia and allow everyone with a grudge to leap on and try and beat the editor around the head" (I've never been the subject of a RFC by the way). --] 14:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


== Call for mentors ==
::::: That is a valid criticism. So what do we do? We could make it more like ArbCom, requiring difss etc., but that would make it more adversarial (which would be bad). <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 15:22, 15 January 2007 (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)
:::::: I suggested once somewhere that RfC could benefit from having a group of neutral coordinators or clerks who could monitor ongoing RfCs, keep them civil, close them at some appropriate time (perhaps after a week without edits, or some other similar time period), and perhaps produce a summary of the comments made that could serve as a "result" of sorts for all parties involved to make use of. The way I see that, it wouldn't be an arbitration or a trial, but a sharing of thoughts that could benefit from someone helping to keep it tidy. Right now, as it's been indicated, it's a bit of a battle royal. With someone generating a summary at the end, it would at least have a product to be looked at. ] <small>]</small> 19:35, 15 January 2007 (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)
: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)
::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 ]==
::::::: OK, I agree. Let's make it happen. Where do we start? Village pump? <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 22:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
]&nbsp;You are invited to join the discussion at ]. –] <small>(])</small> 10:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)<!-- ] -->


== Kansascitt1225 ban appeal ==
::::::::I'd say ] would be a good starting point. ] <small>]</small> 02:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:::*There have been several suggestions to amend RFC to enable it to actually create remedies and enforce them; see ], ] and ]. Not everyone agrees that this is a good idea, but if people are looking at RFC reform this is an angle to consider. ] 09:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


I am posting the following appeal on behalf of {{user21|Kansascitt1225}}, who is considered banned by the community per ]:
== ] ==


(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)
Request help in cleaning up this page, in particular removing sites that are (1) defunct or (2) inappropriate external links. ] 12:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


{{reflist-talk}} ] (]/]) 21:22, 7 January 2025 (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)
*'''Support''' per asilvering and ]. ] (]/]) 21:44, 7 January 2025 (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've added a section which is considered for speedy deletion. And please I want you to remove this article completely from Misplaced Pages because Daniel Küblböck is not famous enough to create his article. ] 15:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
:Unfortunately Küblböck is famous enough to have an article on Misplaced Pages. You linked to an ], so I have reverted your edit. Apparently ] has (correctly) never been considered for deletion. ] ] 15:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
::No, he is not famous enough and I'm rather unsatisfied with your act. I mean there are several American actors who are not available on Misplaced Pages but Daniel Küblböck, that German punk does exist, that's unfair. Where can I post my request? ] 16:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
:::He has a number one single in Germany, thus meets ]. To nominate the article for deletion (which won't succeed), please use ]. If you want to request articles on American actors, please go to ]. ] ] 16:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
::::<''personal attack removed'' - ]|] 23:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)> And thanks for your answer. I will request it. ] 21:14, 15 January 2007 (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)
== IP address 24.147.72.135 ==


== Deleted contributions request ==
Hello! The IP address 24.147.72.135 has been warned numerous times by several people. Yet, they continue to vandalize articles by adding speculation or rumors to those articles. Everyone has become extremely frustrated regarding this person because this IP address has not been blocked. Several people, including me, have used the correct procedures and policies. Yet, nothing is being done to stop this person from vandalizing articles. I am a senior trainer at SeaWorld Orlando and I am ensuring that the articles regarding SeaWorld remain accurate. It is rather difficult when you have an individual constantly adding speculations or personal thoughts not backed by reliable sources. Something needs to be done because this is rather annoying and taking up too much of my time. I reported this individual on WP: AIV and they suggested that I post this user on WP: ANI instead. Can you or anyone else help me with this particular situation? Thanks! ] 16:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
:I've given a 24 hour block. Follow up if problems resume. <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']''</sup></font> 03:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC) {{atop|Done and dusted. Good work all. - ] <sub>]</sub> 06:11, 8 January 2025 (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)
== Need help sorting out a badly initiated AfD ==
::@]: 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)
:::{{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)
::::@]: The import and merge are {{done}}. Please delete the page now. ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 05:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::{{ping|JJPMaster}} I've deleted the page. ] ] 05:31, 8 January 2025 (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}}


== ] behavior (or 'very' slow learner) from ] ==
There's a minor problem over at ]: an editor nominated an article for AfD last night... or rather, tried to. Apparently they were unclear on how to proceed, and instead of using the normal (and admittedly somewhat complex) method for doing so they simply tacked it onto the end of ]. I pointed out that this was not the way to do an AfD and the user attempted to do it the right way, but apparently modifying the "log" page has created ]. (Which I've tried to at least make functional) The contested article itself has the proper template, so at the very least the notification to editors is working fine, but I'm not sure what kind of mess this might cause for the AfD side. I think an admin, ideally one with serious experience with the behind-the-scenes workings of AfD, should take a look at this and make sure AfD isn't going to explode when this is closed. -- ]'''</font>] (<sub>]</sub> <small>]</small> <sup>]</sup>) 18:48, 15 January 2007 (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)}}
]'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)
:It looks like you got it fixed. Article has been created properly, AFD tag on the article properly points to it, and it's properly transcluded in the 14 January log. I've taken off the "HELP" note, because everything looks proper. ] 18:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Confusion about two articles that may be covering the same person ==
== ] page just gone. ==


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)
I have checked, and I can load any other wikipedia page, but the main article for ] is just gone. I don't mean blanked, it just won't load. I've done cache clearing, and all that. Could someone else just check and see what the heck is going on? Thanks. ] 20:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
:: Nope sorry seems to work for me--] 20:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
:::Works for me too. ] 20:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
::::Sorry to have bothered you all then. I still can't get to it, but it must be me somehow. ] 20:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


: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>
:::::I servers regularly do things like that. Try editing it and see if the text loads in the editbox. ] 14:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
: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. ==
== Help in the article ] ==
{{atop|1=] semi-protected until the 23rd. - ] <sub>]</sub> 00:09, 10 January 2025 (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)


: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)
::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)
:::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)
::::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)
{{abot}}


== Hide this racist edit. ==
There is a war of edition in this article. I din´t do changes only revert the edition of Pedro because he was adding fake information and I show that is true in the discussion page. The answer of Pedro are things like that:
{{hat|1=] - ] <sub>]</sub> 00:07, 10 January 2025 (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)}}
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)
<blockquote>
hã? que estás para ai a dizer seu anormal? --Pedro 18:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
</blockquote>
The translations is "What are you saying, retarded?"
He is menacing me with be banned also but he is not administrator. Please help. ] 21:27, 15 January 2007 (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)
Please don't try to use this page for dispute resolution. See ]. ]|] 23:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
:Please refer to ], if there are no active RMYWP admins available. ] (]) 11:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}
{{hab}}


== Admin prohibits to delete copyright links ==
== Help needed on "American Conservatism" ==
{{Atop|This has nothing to do with the English Misplaced Pages.--] (]) 14:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}}


In the following topic: Admin refuses to delete the following links that violate Copyright policies (links to pirated websites):
One editor has moved the main article ] to a new title without any discussion on TALK, let alone consensus. HELP needed. ] 21:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
: Appearently, it ''has'' been discussed on ] and ]. --] <small>(])</small> 23:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


*
==Impersonation==
*


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)
I do believe that this user ] is impersonating wikipedia staff by placing notes on sandbox and other pages claiming it is a message from WMF.
{{Abot}}
--] 21:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
*22:25, 15 January 2007 Cyde (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "DominiquePonchardier (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (Troll)
::Looks like it's taken care of. ---] <small>(]/]/])</small> 23:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


==Mark McGuinn AfD== == 96.230.143.43 ==
{{atop|1=Blocked, and ] is thataway →. - ] <sub>]</sub> 00:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)}}
I was looking through the ]'s for any to comment on or close (as obvious '''Keep'''s) and I found Mark McGuinn who looks to pass ] and have a consensus to Keep but is included directly on the Log page with no subpage and no AfD template on the article see . Since this is a rather unusual situation I thought I would bring it up here for an administrator to deal with. ] 22:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
This user is a frequent vandal on the page ]. I am requesting a block. ] (]) 16:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:First thing you should do it move the debate to a sub-page.
:As for moving from there... You could... 1. Relist properly and let 5 days pass. 2. Close it as a "techinical keep" and let someone else re-nominate it if they feel strong enough about it or 3. Close it as a SNOWBALL keep with the slight risk of being overturned in WP:DRV. ---] <small>(]/]/])</small> 22:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


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


== StoneX Group Inc. ==
] has the same name as ]. He even contributed on the article.--''''']''''' <sup>]</sup><small>]</small> 22:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


I’m concerned about the page at ]
:I filed a request on ]. Let's wait and find out. ] 00:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


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)
::Thanks. I'm sorry for posting my request in the wrong place, but some admins at IRC told me to go here.--''''']''''' <sup>]</sup><small>]</small> 00:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:Have you tried discussing this with the COI editor? ] (]/]) 20:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)


== Permissions Removal ==
It's not a violation if he's the same guy. Then you just have to worry about ]. ] (]/]) 11:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
{{atop|1=Rights...left? - ] <sub>]</sub> 00:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)}}
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)


:Done. Thank you. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 20:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
== 1 month block of 88.104.202.232 ==
{{abot}}


== ftools is back! ==
I have blocked {{ipuser|88.104.202.232}} for this thread: and a string of sneaky vandalism. Since it's a long-block I thought I'd bring it here for community review or reversal. ---] <small>(]/]/])</small> 22:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
:I would have gone with a smaller, 96 hours one, however I am not against a long term block when there is a willingness to disrupt Misplaced Pages. However, account creation blocked? This is where I object. The reverse DNS goes to 88-104-202-232.dynamic.dsl.as9105.com which makes me think we can have some collateral damage there. -- ] 22:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
::It's a bit long for a first block (I might have given a 1-weeker). Honestly, though, I think it's your call, J. smith. If you feel it's appropriate (and certainly sneaky vandalism is quite bad), by all means do it. We're probably not served by having this character editing. ] 22:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
:Ummm maybe 1 month was a bit long. I didn't see any edits from the address other then the recent sneaky vandalism... that's why I blocked account creation. If anyone wants to reduce the length or remove the AC block, feel free. ---] <small>(]/]/])</small> 22:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


I am proud to announce that I have become the new maintainer of Fastily's <code>ftools</code>, which is live ]. And yes, this includes the IP range calculator! ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 23:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
== Cascading protection ==


:{{like}} -] (]) 23:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Why does cascading protection do about images on Wikimedia Commons? I can't really imagine it protecting images ''at'' Commons, but I'm also finding it hard to believe the cascading protection would automatically upload a local copy of an image. Does anyone have any insight into the answer? -- ''']''' 23:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
:Note: {{no ping|DreamRimmer}} is now also a maintainer. ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 15:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)


:It does nothing, the images remain on commons and unprotected. ] <sup>]</sup> 00:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


== Block appeal for ] ==
::I had a feeling that was it... just wondering... -- ''']''' 00:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
{{atop
| status = unblock denied


| result = AKG has withdrawn the request. In any case, I see too many misgivings even on the "support" side to consider an unblock at this time. ] (]) 02:33, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
==IRC admin channel==
}}


I am bringing a somewhat unusual unblock request here for broader community input. {{u|Aman.kumar.goel}} has been blocked for more than a year for sockpuppetry (see ]). As you can see in the unblock request at ], they have agreed to a one-account restriction as an unblock condition, and there is no CU-confirmed evidence of recent sockpuppetry. However, {{u|Ivanvector}}, who made that check, is skeptical and has declined to support an unblock. A topic ban from ] and ] were floated as additional possible conditions, but no agreement was reached, and Aman.kumar.goel has requested that their unblock request be considered by the wider community. Their statement is as follows:
Numerous incidents involving gross incivility on the IRC channel have been brought to the Arbitration Committee's attention. We consider such behavior absolutely unacceptable; to ensure that it does not continue, we have worked with the leadership of the IRC channels to appoint additional channel ops, with a specific mandate to keep Wikimedia IRC channels polite and courteous. Behavior on the IRC channel may be taken into consideration with respect to arbitration cases if it results in disruption on Misplaced Pages. ] for the Arbitration Committee 01:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


:I was blocked for sockpuppetry. There was no doubt throughout the discussion over that. I have agreed to a one-account restriction. However, during the unblock request, a topic ban on me was proposed from ] (WP:ARBPIA) and also from ] (WP:ARBIPA). Though no proper evidence was provided to substantiate such proposals.
:Good call. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 01:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::Not enough. The worst offenders are themselves chanops, as demonstrated by logs submitted to the ArbCom. IMO, their removal from the channel is the very least the ArbCom needs to do for the abused community and mistreated individuals. (The fact that the chanops in question are not actually admins should make the removal all the simpler.) What I see in Fred's message, however is '''not even a proposal to remove their chanop privileges.''' Are you serious? ] | ] 02:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC).
:::Indeed. Without some community involvement regarding who the IRC chanops are, this is unlikely to make much difference. I'm not sure who the worked-with "leaders" in Fred's message are; is it a secret? &mdash;] (]) 02:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


:While the proposal to topic ban me from WP:ARBPIA does not make any sense because I haven't even edited that area, I would nevertheless reject the proposed topic ban from WP:ARBIPA with explanation because in this area I have been significantly active.
:I didn't even know there was a proposal to speak of, where is this being discussed? ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 02:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


:My edits on WP:ARBIPA were clearly net-positive, and they fixed the long-term problems that were otherwise overlooked for a long time. You can find the deletion of a number of non-notable pro-Hindutva articles, creation of SPIs of future LTAs, and multiple DYKs. That said, the idea to topic ban me achieves nothing good. Black Kite himself said "{{tq|The edits aren't the issue here, it's socking in the IPA area that is.}}". However, for the offense of sockpuppetry, I have already agreed to one-account restriction and spent over 1 year blocked.
I'm afraid, when arbcom have constantly declined to address rank and obvious incivility on-wiki, they forfeit all credibility in any attempt to extend themselves into IRC. Send out out strong signals that incivility stops on-wiki and perhaps that will filter through to IRC. Until then.....showing teeth isn't going to convince.--]<sup>g</sup> 02:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


:Once unblocked, I would like to improve drafts such as ] and ]. Looking forward to positive feedback. ''']''' <sup>('']'')</sup> 00:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:That's no different to the claim "we have article X which is clearly rubbish, so we cannot delete article Y" often raised by n00bs at AfD. If the Arbcom feel that these relatively simple steps will reduce incivility in IRC, then they should go ahead, not stop because they haven't solved everything on-wiki first. ] ] 02:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


] (]) 01:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
::Nonsense. If arbcom have shown a total and continued failure to deal with incivility on-wiki, threatening to come down hard on off-wiki incivility just isn't credible.--]<sup>g</sup> 02:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Support unblock without TBANs and with single account restriction.'''] (]) 01:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:::how often have they been presented with on-wiki incivility to deal with it, though? Considering the issues that the channel has apparently given in past/current cases, it seems like they're simply doing what's asked of them. --] <small>]</small> 03:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Why is the issue actually being raised here, in full public view, and not in private with the parties concerned though ? There's already enough disruption on-wiki concerning IRC channels (and this channel in particular) and as nobody outwith the sysop pool (and a few selected others, I'm led to believe) can see what goes on in that channel, posting about it here is perhaps a little overly transparent. I heartily support any promotion of civility however. <span style="font-family: Verdana; color:#FF0000">--Kind Regards - ] <sup>] ]</sup></span> 02:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


*'''Support''' as requested. The request is sincere. Having edited a fair amount of articles where I discovered this editor's edits, I found his edits thoroughly productive and that is absolutely uncommon in this area. ] <small><small>]</small></small> 01:44, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:I assume Fred brought it up here to notify us of a change of policy. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 02:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:* '''Comment''' "Support as requested" sounds like a canvassed vote, did you mean it in a different way? ] 08:48, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:*:You need to re-check. , AKG posted a "request" for "unblock". By "as requested" , I meant how AKG requested himself to be unblocked, that is without any topic bans. Also, see ]. ] <small><small>]</small></small> 11:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:::* I did AGF, otherwise my sentence would not have included the second clause. I understand what you mean ''now'' but I did not from the original posting. ] 15:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*Aman.kumar.goel's explanation for the relationship with Editorkamran is {{tq|we knew each other in real life, and we used the same internet and the same system sometime, and also helped each other at times with Misplaced Pages editing}}, but Ivanvector says the CU data indicates {{tq|someone who had been carefully using two or probably more accounts for quite some time and going to lengths to obscure the connection, but made a mistake just one time that exposed them}}. I don't know who's right, but this is a CU block, so if Aman.kumar.goel stands by his answer, I'd be uncomfortable unblocking unless another CU has a different interpretation of what happened. ] (]) 01:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:@], ] from AKG copied over:{{tq2|Hope you will check my statement above where I explained, "{{tq|However, upon reading further following the block, I realised that what I did was a violation of WP:SOCK because the use of both these accounts was prohibited by the policy, especially WP:SHARE and WP:MEAT.}}" That means the CU finding does not really challenge my admission because I don't deny using multiple accounts. The only thing I happened to clarify was that the two accounts belonged to two different persons before they were used by the same person, which is me. That's why, in my unblock request (for ]), I have also cited the edits of Editorkamran account as part of my edits into this area. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 02:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)}} ] (]/]) 02:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*::All I know about this case is what I can glean by reading the private case notes, which do indeed support what Ivanvector has said. But given that AKG has admitted (on their talk page) to using the Editorkamran account, that's all kind of moot. I'd still like to hear Ivan's latest opinion on this, and I've also pinged off-wiki another CU who is familiar with this case, but my personal feeling is that we should draw a line in the sand and accept the unblock request with the single account restriction, no ARBPIA/IPA/API/TLA restriction, and an understanding that AKG's account at the bank of AGF is empty. ] ] 03:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::Oh, the other thing I wanted to mention is that on unblock requests, we're often left wondering what the user plans to work on if unblocked. In this case, they've specified two extant drafts they want to complete, both of which look like they have the potential to be useful articles. So that's a plus. ] ] 03:22, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*::Am I the only one to feel that their earlier statements, even if they did mention ] would not reasonably be understood to an admission that they did eventually user the Editorkamran account? Especially with all that comment about "we used the same internet and the same system sometime" etc? To my read the earlier statement gives the impression that they each account was only ever used by one person even if they did communicate and coordinate their editing at times. It's only most recently that I feel they've finally made it clear they it wasn't simply a matter of communication and coordination but rather that did use the other account directly. This also leads to the obvious question. How could any editor actually think it's okay for them to use some other editor's account just because it primarily belongs to another editor? Whether you consider it ]ing or whatever, you should not need any real experience to know it's unacceptable and definitely any editor with AKG's experience should know that. Note that I'm not suggesting that an editor who did what AKG did can never be unblocked, definitely they can be. But IMO there are good reasons to call into question whether the editor is ready for an unblock when they seem to have been so dishonest in their unblock request. In other words, if said something like 'yes I did X, I knew it was wrong and should not have done it, I promise not to do it again' rather than what they actually said, I'd be much more inclined to consider an unblock. ] (]) 10:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:For what it's worth: I'm the other CU mentioned by Roy. I had run the initial checks and written some contemporaneous notes. I agree with {{u|Ivanvector}}'s assessment at the talk page appeal; there was a concerted, long-term effort to obfuscate the connection between these accounts, which doesn't really fit with the ] that they only realised they were doing something wrong after the fact. Whether a second individual ''also'' had access to either account at times can't really be retroactively assessed with any certainty, but it also seems immaterial to the finding of socking. --] (]) 17:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' with 1 account restriction. A prolific editor with no recurring issues. Understands where he was wrong. ] (]) 03:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''': I have edited in South Asian-related topics and have run across some edits made by User:Aman.kumar.goel. Of these, I have seen several constructive edits made by him that have overall improved Misplaced Pages. Additionally, being blocked for one year is enough of a penance, which I'm sure has given him time to reflect. In view of this, I support his request in good faith. I hope this helps. With regards, ]<sup>]</sup> 03:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' with one account restriction and no topic restriction. We need competent editors working in the India topic area, as long as they follow policies and guidelines. The editor should be aware that ] applies here. ] (]) 05:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. I warned AKG ] for tag-team editing with Srijanx22, after many instances of one showing up to a content dispute the other was in to back them up. AKG didn't understand then what the issue was. He didn't understand it when he was blocked for socking with Editorkamran. He doesn't seem to understand it now. The semantics of sockpuppetry vs. "just" meatpuppetry are uncompelling. We indeed need more competent editors in the India topic area. We are not going to get closer to that by letting in someone who has shown willingness to serially manipulate interactions in that topic area, who managed to evade detection for years, who continued doing so after a first warning, and whose explanation is, apparently, unpersuasive to CUs who have reviewed the evidence. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 06:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:It has been sufficiently confirmed throughout these years that the false allegation of tag teaming was indeed false. Do you see me in any of the events that have been mentioned so far in this unblock request? You don't. It is disappointing to see you bringing up your misleading observation you made when you weren't even an admin. You did not even ping me. Oh, and don't ask me how I got here because I watch this noticeboard and have edited it before.] (]) 07:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*::I'm glad that you heeded my warning and stopped tag-teaming with AKG. AKG, however, continued to manipulate consensus in the topic area, which is what he got indeffed for. I didn't ping you because I'm not making any comment on your fitness as an editor; I just wanted to be clear that that 2021 report was separate from the Editorkamran case. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 08:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::To quote what I had said then, "{{blue|I am comfortable with ignoring your 'warning' since it lacks policy backing.}}" I said that because no tag teaming on my part ever happened in the first place and the time has proven me correct. I would reiterate that you are supposed to ping the editor whose behavior is being discussed. In this case, you had to. ] (]) 09:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::: Actually, the SPI makes it clear that there ''were'' multiple examples of you reverting to the same version as AKG in rapid succession, whether you were co-ordinating off-wiki with AKG or not. As well as those, I could add ] on 1st December 2020 and 21st February 2021 and ] on 19 April 2020. So please give it a rest with the denials and instead ensure that it doesn't happen in the future if AKG is unblocked. ] 11:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::That's totally superficial. I have also edited both of these popular articles and so have many others I can count on my fingers. ] (]) 16:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::: Yes, but that's not the point; have you reverted to a version also reverted to by AKG within < 24h on multiple occasions? I suspect not. ] 18:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per NxCrypto and RoySmith. I don't see any issue with unblocking right away. The presence of this editor is a net-benefit for this area. ] (]) 07:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' If unblocked, I would like to see AKG stay away from ]. There were a number of times - I count at least nine times between 2020 and 2023 - that they opened cases here trying to get editors on the "opposing" side blocked, and I don't think continuing this is a good idea. I also note that they were very active at SPI cases involving other editors in ARBIPA, which is another sign of BATTLEGROUND behaviour. ] 08:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:That, and the refusal to accept TBANs, gives me bad vibes.
*:I also don't think that agreeing to use only one account is much of a concession, that's kind of a given, but I guess it's at least better than ''not'' agreeing to it. -- ] (]) 08:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:: Yes, this is also my concern. I would have ''thought'' that we would expect an editor banned for socking in a CTOP to at least demonstrate their ability to collaborate well ''outside'' that CTOP before being allowed to edit it. I can understand the Support !votes above from other editors who generally edit from the same POV as AKG, but I'm still not thinking this is a brilliant idea. ] 11:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::What is that "same POV as AKG"? It is certainly not their fault that you are assuming bad faith. ] (]) 16:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::: I don't need to AGF when the evidence is quite plain, as with the editor I mentioned above where I pointed out their tag-teaming issues. ] 19:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. This user edits via proxy with IPBE, and the breadth and depth of the deception shown at that SPI is considerable. Now they're back with a semi-plausible explanation, and I don't buy it. And the one-account restriction is more challenging to police with a proxy/IPBE setup.—]&nbsp;<small>]/]</small> 09:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:*If he has agreed to one account restriction and this socking episode makes him ineligible for any future IPBE right, so what's wrong in allowing him back in since he has already served a year of block? Unless you are suggesting we completely ban those who have engaged in sock puppetry altogether, which is unrealistic. ] (]) 11:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
::*What's wrong in allowing him back is everything Ivanvector says in that SPI. Please read it carefully and then re-read AKG's unblock request with a critical eye.—]&nbsp;<small>]/]</small> 12:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. I would support unblocking with an ARBIPA topic ban (which could be appealed later when AKG has proved they can edit well outside that area). But since AKG will not accept that TBAN I can only Oppose at the moment. ] 11:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - The request is convincing and to-the-point. Those opposing are seemingly forgetting that it has been more than a year since this editor has been blocked. ] (]) 12:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per above without any topic ban. It is totally unreasonable to seek punishment over the same offense even after WP:SO has been sufficiently met. ] (]) 12:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:It is not at all unusual for editors seeking an unblock to be required to accept a topic ban as a precondition to that unblock. are are recent examples from this noticeboard. ] (]) 15:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*::Whilst I don't support the topic ban, it would not be done as ''punishment'', but as a measure reducing the likelihood of further disruption. ] (]) 16:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*::Caeciliusinhorto-public not good to compare community banned editors with this case. ] (]) 16:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per {{u|Ivanvector}}: i.e. dependent on {{blue|a topic ban from WP:ARBIPA and WP:ARBPIA and a single-account restriction}}. This will deal with the meat of the issue, while WP:ROPE should take care of the crust. ]'']''] 13:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' I find myself agreeing with {{U|Black Kite}} - if they are willing to come back with a topic ban that'd be one thing. Without it I'm concerned we'll just end up back at AN/I, SPI or AE again. ] (]) 13:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:I will tentatively change my position to support provided it includes the topic ban. ] (]) 18:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' While I appreciate that brevity is required in unblock requests and people have different ways of writing stuff, as I noted above I feel the original unblock request was at a minimum intentionally evasive if not even misleading on whether Aman.kumar.goel had used the Editorkamran account directly. While they've now made it clear that they did so, the fact this only happened after editor questioned their story compared to the CU view makes me question whether it's because they didn't realise they were unclear or instead because they realised their evasiveness wasn't working. If they were evasive in their recent unblock request, this makes it very hard to trust Aman.kumar.goel. Further, even if Akg wasn't being evasive, it's very unclear why an editor with their experience didn't realise what they were doing was wrong until recently. I was originally willing to accept with a topic ban but frankly I'm now not even sure that's enough, but it's moot anyway. If this fails, I'd suggest on their next appeal Aman.kumar.goel ensures what they're telling us is clear from the get go. ] (]) 15:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' without topic ban. Sockpuppetry was the sole concern for the indefinite block. There is no evidence of any disruptive edits, as such the idea of topic ban makes zero sense. ] (]) 15:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per Black Kite. Any unblock that doesn't involve a restriction on AKG's original area of disruption will simply allow for further disruption. ] ] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>(])</sup></small></span> 16:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Not at all. Very recently, several editors editing this subject and socked were unblocked recently without any topic bans, including one more editor who was banned per 3x. ] <small><small>]</small></small> 16:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per Nil Einne. Being "intentionally evasive if not even misleading" during this unblock request and previously makes it very hard for me to trust this user. I'm glad they owned up to their outright sockpuppetry with Editorkamran and had they done so from the beginning of the request, I'd have considered supporting the request, provided they accepted the topic ban(s) suggested (so as to increase the odds of their future success). --] (]) 16:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' unless an ARBIPA TBAN is applied. AKG's edits have not always been a positive: their approach to contentious matters has often been needlessly aggressive, and they haven't always been able to engage constructively with users and sources they disagree with. In that context sockpuppetry is more than "just" sockpuppetry. Some examples: , , , , , , and (These are discussions, not diffs, but I believe the context is needed to demonstrate the pattern I see). ] (]) 16:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:<s>I would tentatively '''support''' with the TBAN they have now agreed to.</s> I have no opinion on whether a PIA ban is needed: if they have edited in that area I haven't seen it. I was considering suggesting a ban from bring others to AE/AN/ANI, but perhaps some rope is appropriate there. In any case they should be aware that they are on thin ice. I would also note that under no circumstances should they be given IPBE in the foreseeable future. ] (]) 18:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC) I'm sorry to vacillate like this, but based on comments by Ivanvector and Girth Summit I simply cannot support <small>(NB: while I am a CU, I am obviously not acting as a CU in this case)</small>. Despite our past disagreements I had been willing to give AKG another chance, but that was based on the assumption that they were being fully forthcoming, and based on the comments of CUs familiar with this situation, it doesn't appear that they have come clean. Put me down as a neutral, I suppose, though I remain opposed absent a TBAN. ] (]) 22:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''': Per Vanamonde, Tamzin, and Black Kite. It's telling that they won't accept a TBAN from my point of view. They were disruptive prior to their block and, as much as I want to assume good faith, I feel strongly that their refusal signals their intent to immediate jump into said area. There's also the concern that they may end up chasing other editors away from the site if they continue their aggressive behaviour and approach, which frankly I expect based on the lengths they went to in the past and the TBAN issue. I think this user was a net negative, chased people away from those areas, and made it more difficult for others to get involved with. Unblocking this user would end up leading to editor time wasted and would be a further net negative. ] (]) 17:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Noting that I still oppose the unblock, even though they accepted the condition about a TBAN. I agree with Girth Summit that this seems to just be someone saying whatever they think will convince people to unblock them. I also firmly believe that allowing them back onto the project will be a net negative. ] (]) 20:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' Aman.kumar.goel has requested this comment to be posted here from their talkpage:
{{Talkquote|After seeing a number of editors, some of whom I respect, are supporting my unblock but only with a topic ban from ], I would like to accept the topic ban from the said area. Ping {{u|Yamla}}, {{u|The Kip}}, {{u|Black Kite}}, {{u|Caeciliusinhorto-public}}, {{u|Simonm223}} and {{u|Vanamonde93}}. Thanks ''']''' <sup>('']'')</sup> 17:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)}}
- ] (]) 17:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)


:Would they also consent to the ] topic ban? Because my understanding is that the ask was for both. ] (]) 17:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
All this will start is anoth shit-storm (sigh)--]<sup>g</sup> 02:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:: I don't believe the PIA issue is a problem, only the IPA one. ] 18:57, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' an unblock based on this request. When I'm looking at an unblock request, I try to get a sense of whether someone is actually coming clean and saying 'I did this thing, I recognise that was out of order and I undertake that I won't do it again', or something along those lines. In this case, I don't see that. In their unblock request of 10 December 2024 (just a month ago), AKG seems still to be saying that they were not using multiple accounts - their argument seems to be that they accept there was a violation of ] and ], but the two accounts were used by two different people from the same device. They have since swung round to acknowledging that they were in fact using the Editorkamram account, but are saying that they thought that was OK since the account really belonged to somebody else and they only used it from time to time. I'm afraid I simply don't believe that story, and I don't know what to think about their shifting narratives - I get the sense of someone saying whatever they think will convince people to unblock them, changing their story when it becomes apparent that it's not working, and failing to actually come clean about what they did and why they did it. If I don't trust someone in what they are saying in their unblock appeal, I don't trust them to abide by a one-account restriction - so, yeah, I don't think we can accept this request. Do some self-reflection, come back in six months with a frank and believable unblock request. ]] 18:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. Seeing that AKG has agreed to the proposed IPA topic ban, the unblocking would be fine now. See no other issues. ] (]) 19:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' based on the comments from RoySmith and agree with their point that the AGF tank is gone for A.K.G. Any issues beyond a minor oops with their editing should be an immediate indef. No warnings, no "one last chance". That bridge was crossed, burned, torn down and barriers put up to block it from being rebuilt. ''']''' (]) 19:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
::I hope A.K.G recognizes that is a last chance for them, and returning quickly to a contentious topic could be challenging for them to stay cool, engage in discussions but not disruption and that there will be enhanced scrutiny on their edits and willingness to take concerns to an admin board. They can't edit as they did before. ''']''' (]) 19:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - I gave my reasons on the talk page; I don't trust this user. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 20:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Also I should point out that I was not involved whatsoever in the checks that led to this block; my comments on the talk page refer to emails I remember reading a year earlier on the private checkuser mailing list, which does not archive. I did check in relation to their unblock request recently and in my opinion that check was inconclusive; I elaborated on their user talk at the time. The result gives me pause because they had been using multiple accounts and evading checkuser for quite a long time before being blocked, while editing in one of our longest-designated contentious topics, one that's known to be very badly impacted by sockpuppetry and state-sanctioned disinformation campaigns. I suggested a topic ban from India-Pakistan for reasons that I think are already obvious from previous comments in this thread, and from Israel-Palestine because of something I thought I read on their talk page about a dispute in that topic, but I can't find that now and so I have to say I was probably out of line to have suggested it. But on the whole, I do not support unblocking, even with the proposed restriction. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 20:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*Very, very '''weak support''' on unblocking here with a one-account and indefinite IPA topic ban restriction. I found my engagement with the editor at their talk page today to be somewhere between obstructionist and disingenuous — and from reading the comments above, others have got similar vibes from different comments earlier in this process regarding the sockpuppetry and willingness to accept a topic ban condition. As Ravensfire notes above, the assume good faith tank is just about empty here — which means any non-trivial lapse or return to suboptimal behaviours is going to end up with a pretty swift reblock. I am very sympathetic to the number of very experienced editors above saying that this editor is a time sink and a net negative, and while I don't necessarily disagree based on what I've seen at their talk page and the evidence presented here, I think it's worth trying here one more time — armed with account and topic ban restrictions, and a pretty clear sentiment from a number of admins commenting (both on the support and oppose sides) that any issues upon resuming editing will be handled swiftly. ] (]) 22:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support, but''' only with IPA topic ban, 1-account restriction, no VPN use, and no IPBE. That should allow us to be able to detect recidivism and limit potential damage. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 22:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per Black Kite, Tamzin, S Marshall, Girth Summit, and Ivanvector. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 23:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''', agreeing with a number of editors above. I don't know if the two drafts, for Indian companies, would fall under ]. Unfortunately, the editor does not seem trustworthy. ]] 23:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - At the end of the day, the ] has been followed by this user for a long time. Don't see anything wrong with providing one more chance. ] (]) 23:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per comments of Blablubbs, Tamzin, etc. If they are unblocked, they should be under an India--Pakistan CTOP topic ban. --] (]) 00:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''Oppose'''. The CheckUser evidence of overt sock puppetry (not meat puppetry) is pretty strong, and the repeated denials, which seem to get walked back over time, make this user seem untrustworthy. ] (]) 00:28, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - Noting the opposes above, AKG has nevertheless agreed with a topic ban inline with many of the opposes. It shows he is willing to minimize any possible concerns and that is a good sign. ] (]) 00:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' calling socking the sole issue is a red herring when there was disruption in addition, but the socking alone merited the block so they didn't need to be blocked for both. I think accepting the t-ban is more telling us what he thinks we want to hear, vs. awareness of why AKG shouldn't edit there. I do not think an unblock would be productive. ] ] 01:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Import request ==
Maybe we should work to fix incivility on-wiki too. These proposed remedies are more strict than how misconduct has been handled on-wiki as of late. --] 02:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


Can you import, ] from simple Misplaced Pages. I created the page there.<span id="Cactusisme:1736493543617:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators&apos;_noticeboard" class="FTTCmt"> —&nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> <sup>]</sup> 07:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)</span>
* This is becoming a joke. Judging from the title of the heading alone shows that we are no different from ]. - ] 02:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:I suppose you mean , which you ''didn't'' create at all though, and which is completely unsuitable for enwiki as it stands, being unsourced and lacking all indication of notability. ] (]) 09:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
::Well, they create the page. ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 15:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
::], oh, okay<span id="Cactusisme:1736586978195:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators&apos;_noticeboard" class="FTTCmt"> —&nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> <sup>]</sup> 09:16, 11 January 2025 (UTC)</span>


== Requesting a range block of 109.172.86.0/24 ==
I find a regulation of off-wiki activities by a panel with jurisdiction ONLY over this wiki somewhat disturbing. &mdash; ''']''' '']'' 02:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


] this range of IP addresses have solely been used to insert nonsensical characters. Another IP range has already been blocked for the same thing (they edited the same way). ]] 10:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:They aren't claiming jurisdiction, note Fred says they have been working with the IRC leadership. They are simply stating that IRC activity may be considered in on-wiki cases if it is relevant. ] ] 02:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
: Looks like it's web hosting or something like that. Sometimes these kinds of services turn out to be proxies for schools or businesses, especially when there's petty disruption coming from them. There's nobody on this IP range at all, though, so it seems safe to hard block. ] (]) 15:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
== Arbitration motion regarding coordinating arbitrators ==


The Arbitration Committee has resolved by ] that:
I'm sorry but why is this being discussed ''now''? Efforts have been made in the past few weeks to put a stop to whatever negative activities are occuring in the channel. Frankly, I think most of us support the shutdown of the channel entirely, rather than creating more mess with the same parties, which is what's happening right now. —<b><font color="#00FFFF">]</font>] (])</b> 02:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:Maybe it is time to shut it down. ] 02:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


{{ivmbox|1=
::Whether it is shut down or not, the behavior we are trying to stop can easily continue through other means if people really want to do things subtly, but nonetheless I think that shutting the channel down is a poor move. The channel has its uses for immediate issues and things that require administrator intervention. Rooting out the behavior that would not be suitable even on-wiki is definitely a positive step in making the channel more useful so that there is less cause for disruption in the future, though. <font color="DarkGreen">]</font><sup>]</sup> 02:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
The ] are amended by adding the following section:
:::Possibly, but discussing administrator intervention issues there is what started all this in the first place. Sensitive foundation/WP:BIO stuff can find a new home, sometimes it's easier to shut something down and start over then trying to fix ongoing systemic problems. But maybe all it needs is an influx of new users/admins with these conversations in mind. ] 03:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
<blockquote>
:Can someone point me to the discussion that everyone seems to have read, because I am lost here, what is everyone so pissed off about? ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 02:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
; Coordinating arbitrators
::In this case, ignorance is bliss. Just slowly step away and never look back. --] 02:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee shall, from time to time, designate one or more arbitrators to serve as the Committee's coordinating arbitrators.
:::IRC comes up from time to time...buried in ] and ] archives. Some admins are firm believers in it, some editors (mostly non-admins) are vocal against it, and others such as myself qualify to join but decline to do so. The civility aspect dovetails with another recent hot button topic not necessarily confined to IRC. On January 5 I set off a firestorm (quite inadvertently) after I left a civility warning on another admin's talk page. If I'd anticipated how heated some reactions would be I would have handled the situation with greater circumspection, yet the admin I warned wasn't offended and two other editors awarded me barnstars. It sprouted some threads in my most recent user talk archive and the top of my current page if you're curious. <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']''</sup></font> 03:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


Coordinating arbitrators shall be responsible for assisting the Committee in the routine administration and organization of its mailing list and non-public work in a similar manner as the existing ] assist in the administration of the Committee's on-wiki work.
*This is not sufficient, in my view. Lest I be counted merely among the "burn it down" camp, let me delineate:
*#''Additional'' ops would be enough if there were a suggestion that there were too few. In fact, in this case, the ones with "ops" have been implicated several times in the incivility.
*#''Additional'' ops are also not going to answer the glaring problem that ''at least'' two people with "ops" are not administrators on en.wikipedia. One of these was implicated in using that IRC channel inappropriately in September of 2006 and then again in December 2006. This is not a one time problem but a serial problem with two or three people.
*#The channel still has no justification, as it is populated by non-administrators as well as being a place only a small fraction of en. administrators ever go.
*#The channel will not be ''capable'' of behaving properly unless the people with control of it understand what it is that they have done that is not proper. So far as I have seen or heard, they still are in the dark about how calling for someone to be "killed, slowly" is bad, and there is no hope at all for them to understand how "let's start a pool on when X will be banned" is improper.
*#The central problem remains undefined. If no one knows what "civility" means, then we're going to have more boots and blocks for someone using a wordy dird while detailed character assassination is cheered on. There is no actual guideline yet for the ops or users to employ for determining when they're acting improperly. In fact, one of the most hostile and reductive and bullying editors I've encountered is up above crying about on-wiki "civility" not being enforced. Obviously, what he means and what Fred means, and what I mean, are different things. He seems to hyperventilate about calling a he a she or a jerk an ass, while I care about trying to get people blocked so that their voices are no longer heard.
*I do think the whole thing should be disbanded, as I cannot see any room for it to ''help'' Misplaced Pages and built in ways for it to damage Misplaced Pages, but that would be merely philosophical if it weren't for the fact that ArbCom cannot act here and now because the people "in charge" are the people in the dock. They do not admit wrong, cannot conceive that they could be wrong, and will therefore not do anything differently, especially in the long term. If this is merely round two of a three round fight, if we have to wait for yet another horrendous case of star chamber blocks and rallying to destroy users, then that's a disgrace that proves that it's not what you do, but who you know. Incidentally, that is the charge trolls make all the time, and it's disgusting that we would make them right. ] 03:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


The specific responsibilities of coordinating arbitrators shall include:
:Geogre, I think it's apparent that there ''isn't'' a definition of civility that everyone agrees on. Your comment above, "a he a she or a jerk an ass," illustrates the problem nicely. You didn't think anything of it, and still don't, but several people regarded it as one of the meanest, nastiest things ever said by one user about another, ''and the fact that you don't agree does not for one moment diminish the effect that it had.'' ] ] 03:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
* Acknowledging the receipt of correspondence and assigning tracking identifiers to pending requests and other matters;
*And, on the other hand, many people see absolutely nothing wrong with spending hours talking about users who aren't present and talking about how they're all "idiots" and how they should be banned. They see nothing wrong with it still. So, if we were to balance out the two, where would we be: one person saying, of another who says frequently that she is pleased to be able to identify either way, one particular thing about gendered speech, versus three sitting about every night with an enemies list and coordinating provocations, blocks, and actions to generate a ban? You're right, Mackensen, I don't see that there is any comparison at all. One is ''being disagreeable'' and the other is ''trying to interrupt Misplaced Pages.'' One is where all sides may defend themselves (or take revenge, which seems to be the preferred reaction), and the other is where only like-voices can be heard as revenge. That you could be such a blushing violet and see these as anything like the same is strange to me, you are correct. ] 13:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
* Tracking the status of pending matters and providing regular updates and reminders on the status of the Committee's off-wiki work to arbitrators;
**Geogre, you seem to be taking the same line that Giano is: incivility on the encyclopedia is justified by perceived off-wiki conspiracies. Let's say you're right, just for the sake of the argument: Kelly Martin and other persons are conspiring to drive you and Giano off the encyclopedia. How does that, in any way, justify you making the aforementioned statement? An eye for an eye, Geogre? If I allege an off-wiki conspiracy against me by User X, on flimsy evidence, may I start trash-talking them in public? ] ] 13:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
* Reminding members of the Committee to vote or otherwise take action in pending matters;
*No, Mackensen, I'm trying to illustrate to you the difference between being unpleasant (me) and disliking someone (as I do) and character assassination with the intent of blocking. I am justified in calling you a worm, if I want. That's my opinion, to which I am entitled. I would probably ''hope'' that you would be affronted, but I would have no expectation that you'd ''block'' for that, as '''no policy''' says that anyone may be blocked for expressing an unpleasant opinion. On the other hand, if I spend hours with only my friends in Misplaced Pages Divine Actions IRC, and we talk non-stop about how horrible Mackensen is, how he lies all the time, how he spends all his time complaining, how he's corrupt, how he's a hypocrit, etc., and then, when new people come in, that's all they see. If they protest, we all take turns telling that person that she should not be at our channel, because she may get blocked. Now, suppose, Mackensen, that you actually saw a log of that. How would you feel if I got sanctimonious about it? How would you feel if I threatened to block you (or did it) for telling anyone about the log? As for me, let them conspire. They've been doing it, and they'll do it still. I'm a big boy and am not threatened by pufferfish. The issue is much more concrete, much more precise. We are all free to be unpleasant, disagreeable, cantankerous, and ill humored, but we are '''not free to conspire to block''' other users. Or, in simpler words: we have to obey policy, not our inner rage. ] 00:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
* Organizing related correspondence into case files; and
**Well, call me a worm if you like. That's not very collegial but I suppose if it floats your boat I won't argue. I wouldn't block you either, but I might start bringing up next time you ran for arbcom. I don't like civility blocks, and I'm on the record stating this numerous times, so let's move on. For all I know there are IRC channels where my name is mud; certainly there are talk pages on this encyclopedia that fit said description. I can't say that those bother me either. People of sound judgment can tell the difference between intelligent criticism and prattle, and I know whose opinion I value. Now, as it happens, I've been in a position where private evidence of someone bad-mouthing me was presented to me. I didn't do anything about it because frankly I didn't give a good damn. You're quite right that we have to obey policy. Last I looked ] was a policy, although not one with much weight any more. You talk about character assassination: why don't you look down below, where Giano is making slanderous remarks. You wanted to be an arbitator: is this your idea of handling a dispute? ] ] 00:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
* Performing similar routine administrative and clerical functions.


A coordinating arbitrator may, but is not required to, state an intention to abstain on some or all matters before the Committee without being listed as an "inactive" arbitrator.
::I don't believe in ignorance is bliss, that has always seemed like a myth to me. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 03:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
</blockquote>

}}
The arbcom has discussed this at great length. Clearly there is a problem. However, with an issue this complex, involving this many actors, there is no solution that will please everyone. On one extreme is people who advocate shutting the channel down, and on the other is people who advocate doing nothing. I think the solution Fred mentioned - working with the structures currently in place to enforce civility in the channel - is a fair compromise. ] 03:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:What structures? Is there any clear methodology for who and who isn't a chanop there? Who are the "leaders" Fred Bauder mentioned? It's a wild-west free-for-all where the most entrenched clique wins in there. &mdash;] (]) 03:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::Beg pardon, but how can you confess ignorance at the leadership structure and then characterize it? ] ] 03:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

:Admin IRC? Is that the place where admins rubs their hands saying ''mwhahaha''? -- ] 03:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::You joke, but I'm left with the impression that some people think just that. That's what happens when you cherry-pick from a log file. Sure, you'll find something objectionable, but extrapolating from that and coming up with the idea that the whole channel is rotten to the core is just bad propaganda. One should never build law on outlier cases or personalities, but we seem to be headed that way. ] ] 04:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::Let me point out, specifically, that I acknowledge the existence of specific abuses in the above comment. ] ] 04:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:::I've never set foot ... err ... keyboard ... in the admin IRC channel. Is it any different from the regular one? On there, people ask for help. They bounce ideas off of each other. They talk about non-wiki things. They point out funny/silly/ludicrous things they've found while editing. Sometimes there's profanity or other rudeness. It's pretty much like life in general. Is the admin channel any different? --] 04:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::::Not really, except that the people in there discuss administrative actions too. The controversial nature of any admin action is squared if "IRC" is breathed, since it implies a conspiracy. ] ] 04:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::::On the whole, the incidents which have prompted this constitute well under 1% of all traffic. Unfortunately, they also represent between 50%-100% of some users total experience with either this channel, or IRC in general. This is a problem, but I think it's a problem in search of a targeted solution. ] ] 04:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

:::(edit conflict, replying to Mackensen at 04:00) Thankfully, my knowledge about IRC is limited to ''/connect'', ''/join'', ''/alias'' and ''/quit'', so I am pretty neutral here. Hmm... I once tried to download some movie through a channel, but it said something about being at position 5,000 in a queue, and after half an hour I was 7,000, so I turned the computer off and bought the DVD.
:::I know IRC is necessary to discuss in real time, but undoubtedly, it creates a separation between administrators, just like ]. There are those that can/want to connect through IRC, and those that can't/won't. It is inevitable. Even I feel that difference when someone reports a user at AIV stating "sockpuppet of blocked XXX", and when reviewing XXX's block, I find a "blocked per IRC talk" or similar. However, I must assume good faith, especially without logs. Others just can't (because of personal experience or anything), and raise in arms. It is a real pity that we do not have a ] where to check the public conversations in the channels, available only for admins, that would make things much clearer for everyone. -- ] 04:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::::There's the rub: you don't why an administrator is acting ''period'', regardless of what discussion took place. Even when an administrator cites a specific policy, it still came down to the functioning of various processes in his or her head. There's a thousand IRC channels out there, and most of them prohibit logging. It only comes up with #wikipedia-en-admins because a) some things said there really aren't for public consumption because there are privacy issues, and b) the relative size makes it possible to enforce the rule. ] ] 04:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::Of course! However, if an off-wiki action (as in, a IRC chat) brings a on-wiki reaction (in example, blocking a user), I think it would be just to include at least some information about that, just like you would point to the AFD when deleting an article, or the external link when deleting a copyvio. Ok, so full logging is not a solution, but at least consider some way of IRC board where to post the juicy parts (as in, the statements that were used to build consensus about something). We can quote an AFD, a URL or a report, we can even quote a mail to the mailing list, but we can't quote an IRC conversation? As I said, I assume good faith even though a vandal has broken two test4 warnings. However, others are less patient, and you need to comprehend them. I would even say that everyone's priority is to open the process as much as possible. -- ] 04:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::Well, as I've said before, I see no reason to invoke IRC ''at all''; every administrator is responsible for what they do. Heck, every editor is responsible for every edit they make. Whether it was discussed on IRC or not is frankly beside the point. Anyone should be able to give a rational accounting of their actions. The problem is that the mention of IRC often leads to an assumption of bad faith--not always, but it happens. ] ] 04:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::::It is not that different from, in example, asking to review a block here, is it? I mean, some users may bring a review here (like ]), others may feel more comfortable with reviewing there. You are right, if you do something, you take responsibility. But if they can't and use some IRC chat as justification, that chat should be made public.
:::::::No need to reply, though, we will keep going in circles like the ] avatar :-) -- ] 05:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

::Much of this seems a bit moot. Even if the admin channel was shut down, it is technically impossible to prevent private communication between any group that decides to communicate privately. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 04:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:::The admin channel also serves as a place a lot of newer admins with questions go to get their questions answered. They hang out there, and see how abusive behavior is tolerated and encouraged. In short order they may come to believe such behavior is the correct and expected behavior for administrators. &mdash;] (]) 04:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:Good point grapes, I went there when I was new at the mop for advice and it was very helpful. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 04:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::Yep. It's a good use for IRC. We don't need an #admins channel for it; were there very many highly-sensitive issues you were asking about, that couldn't have been as easily asked and answered in #wikipedia-en? &mdash;] (]) 04:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:::Well, you go where the people are. If you have a specific question about administration, you go where the administrators are. I find #wikipedia a bewildering place; I never got the impression that #wikipedia-en was highly patronized. ] ] 04:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

:Nothing is wrong with private communication, some questions need to be asked in front of experienced users, instead of everyone. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 04:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::Yes, but no reason to not ask a few well regarded administrators privately via email for the same advice or direction. Rarely, is something so immediate that it can't be resolved via email.--] 06:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
=== In camera (aka arbitrary section break) ===
It's been asked a few times, but I'll ask again: What discussion with whom? Would it not make more sense to have the whole thing conducted "in public" as it were? The easiest questions to answer are:
* Who are the "leadership of the IRC channels," and
* Who has been "appoint additional channel ops?"
<font color="black">]</font> 04:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
*The channels are under the control of James Forrester. The leadership is best described as James and Essjay, with help from others. The chanops on ''this channel in question'' include the following: FloNight, DavidGerard, Sannse, Fennec, Danny, Mackensen, Morven, Mark Ryan, Jimbo, Essjay, Angela, JamesF, Kelly Martin, Uninvited Company, Mindspillage and Dmcdevit. ] ] 04:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

::Good questions. Please, don't assume everyone knows what you are talking about, I only have a vague sense of what is going on here. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 04:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:: Since I'm a bit thick I like it when things are spleed write out: ''this channel in question'' is the admin channel? JF is "in charge" of #wikipedia and #whateveritis-admins, and that list are the chanops for #admins? And "include the following" is hazy to me. Sorry to be pedantic, but can we have a complete list of
::* Existing/previous chanops for vanilla wikipedia channel,
::* Existing/previous chanops for admin channel, and
::* Whomever are the "additional" chanops and what channels they are assigned on?
::The more I read that response the less feeling of security I get... "with help from others" leaves a lot to be desired as well. Was this discussion conducted via mailing list, IRC, something else, and is it written on water or is there something that Morlocks like me can refer to?<br/><font color="black">]</font> 04:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:::*First of all, #wikipedia-en-admins is the only channel under consideration here. Latent abuses in other channels remain unexplored pending someone of importance getting wronged in one of them (no, I'm not being sarcastic, I'm quite serious about that). New chanops for #wikipedia-en-admins are: FloNight, David Gerard, Mackensen, Morven, Uninvited Company and Dmcdevit (thereabouts, anyway). JamesF, as I understand it, is controller of at least all English-language channels because of chaos at freenode following ]'s death. There're numerous chanops on #wikipedia, too many to list here. The information is publicly accessible if anyone wants it. This was discussion on the mailing list of the Arbitration Committee, which happens to include the people responsible for the IRC channels. A happy coincidence proving that no good deed goes unpunished. ] ] 05:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::* Thank you. I appreciate you having patience while I catch up. No, ''I'm ''not being sarcastic. ^_^ <br/><font color="black">]</font> 06:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::::*Mackensen, a minor point about your list of 16 #en-admins chanops above. You say that the list "includes" these people; does that mean it's incomplete? I ask because a couple of weeks ago I was kickbanned from the channel by somebody who's not on the list. I won't inflame matters here by naming him, but you certainly know who I mean. Was he an op? Or temporarily opped in order to kick me? Is he an op today? I'm over it, but the action was random and remains unexplained, so I think the answers are of some general interest. ] | ] 06:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC).
:::::*I omitted all level 10s in the interest of brevity. It was also late and I knew I'd miss somebody. ] ] 11:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::*Bishonen, that was awhile ago now. I think it's best to just get over it and stop constantly bringing it up. IRC channel actions really don't mean a lot. --] 14:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::In the interest of full disclosure, I have placed a copy of the access list, obtained via ChanServ, in my userspace (]) so as not to clutter up AN. I have removed all those under accesslevel 10, which to my recollection is the level of CMDOP in the channel. If anyone objects to this list (although it is freely available in IRC), then I will remove it. The names there are registered nicknames, and may or may not correspond with Misplaced Pages usernames. —] <font color="#C46100" size="1">]</font> 06:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I am glad to see other syops on the channel will have the ability to boot those that are being incivil, but what level of incivility is needed before this happens? The problem as I see it has less to do with incivility than with the channels being used to speak a bit too openly about other editors...that should be reserved for private email only. I recognize that IRC would have usefulness if the sole purpose was to expedite a block on a troll, but all decisions to make blocks on established editors should be determined by consensus on wiki, not off it....so what pupose does it serve? Really now, are we a chat forum or are we a collection of encyclopedia writers?--] 06:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

:The "Chatting vs. Encyclopedia-writing" argument is moot on IRC. IRC ''is'' for discussion of all types, and WMF has nothing to do with Freenode. Those who use IRC are not using Misplaced Pages as a chat forum, they're using ] as a chat forum, whose initials, by the way, stand for "Internet Relay Chat". —] <font color="#C46100" size="1">]</font> 06:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

::Yes, but the chatting has led to blockings and has led to reverting blocks made by established admins and has led to formulating abuses that have taken place on wiki on established editors. I am well aware of what IRC stands for...I never use it however and won't.--] 06:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:::I'm sure it has. But it's very easy to pick out singular events that happen every so often, paint all of IRC with the same brush, and in so doing lose sight of what actually happens the majority of the time, which is positive discussion. I know that I personally have been talked down from blocks that I was ready to make when I asked for second opinions, I know that discussions take place that are very positive. I know that sometimes it's okay for someone who has been blocked to be able to get on IRC, get a one-on-one chat with an admin, and explain their side of the story that often doesn't come out on-wiki. The {{tl|unblock}} template is great but sometimes it isn't very conducive to an in-depth review of a block. If an unblock happens based on that discussion, then it is absolutely the responsibility of the unblocking admin to monitor their contributions to ensure that they were not being disingenuous on IRC. Admins make mistakes, and discussions about what we do or about Misplaced Pages process or about the general goings-on can almost never be bad, in my humble opinion. I guess I just don't see the basis for the "OMG EVIL!" attitudes that some people (not you, MONGO) harbor towards IRC. Do people sometimes get into heated discussions? Sure, I got into one last night. Do sometimes administrators make bad judgments? Of course, that's true with or without IRC. I just think that people are looking at a very tiny subset of what goes on and are ignoring what goes on 99% of the time, which is very positive for Misplaced Pages. Anyway, just my $0.02. Your mileage may vary, etc. etc. —] <font color="#C46100" size="1">]</font> 07:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::::Of course...the point is, I see that IRC allows less transparency than we should have. I don't have time to bother with IRC and am simply encouraging all admins and ArbCom members to do all they can to discuss matters on wiki and use IRC for non-harassing chat.--] 07:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC
:::* My experiance with the plain olde #wikipedia channel is almost universally positive: People collaberating on articles, rational discussions of policy interpretation, etc. When the atmosphere turns poisonious there are enough people around to either tell the person to can it or for the offender to get the boot. (Once it was me, and I deserved it.) #admins I ] in all the time, and the ratio is reversed: There are too many like-minded people there, and the toxicity gets multiplied. I have never, not even on one occasion, seen anything discussed there that would not have gotten a better airing on the main channel. More ops isn't going to solve this, when the list supplied above has listed ''as'' ops several of those often painted as "unrepentantly uncivil." - <font color="black">]</font> 07:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::::*You really need to try the channels again. #wikipedia is pretty much universally acknowledged as a cesspit. #admins at least has well-reasoned discussion, although it's going downhill a bit what with the recent influx of teen admins who don't seem to realize that it isn't for extended off-topic chatter. --] 14:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
*The one thing I have never understood about the admin channel is that it appeared to me, on my infrequent visits, that people weren't using their Misplaced Pages username as their nickname. I guess I'm probably a little dense, but I never understood why. ] <small>]</small> 10:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
**How many people have access to the channel who are not admins? How many are former admins who resigned their sysop status, or were forcibly de-sysopped? Because not one of those should have access to the channel, yet they do. ]<i>::</i><small>]</small> 12:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
*** I've yet to hear why an admin who voluntarily relinquished adminship is no longer trustworthy. ] ] 12:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
**** Not to kick salt in someone's eyes when they are down, but if the ArbCom has said that you _must_ re-apply for adminship if you want it back there is clearly a grey area with regards to trust. - <font color="black">]</font> 12:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
*****Plus at least some of those who voluntarily relinquished adminship jumped before they were pushed, so to speak. ]<i>::</i><small>]</small> 13:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
*Fred Bauder says "Numerous incidents involving gross incivility on the IRC channel have been brought to the Arbitration Committee's attention. We consider such behaviour absolutely unacceptable; to ensure that it does not continue, we have worked with the leadership of the IRC channels to appoint additional channel ops" Fred gives sufficient reasons for closing down the channel but then shows the complete lack of understanding of the problem by failing to say that some of the existing channel ops are not only the worst offenders but at least one is a member of the arbcom. He then goes on to say "we have worked with the leadership of the IRC channels " again the self proclaimed owner of the channel; is not only a member of the arbcom, but yes, you've guessed it - one of the worst offenders. Well done Fred we yet again see that this arbcom is beyond redemption. However, I am glad that after so long of being told by Misplaced Pages's hierarchy that I am imagining these things, they do now seem to be completely unacceptable gross incivility even though the IRC logs show them to be far more serious. Bullying and intimidation are just two words which immediately spring to mind. It should also be remembered that the deplorable events which have been permitted on IRC (certainly in my own experience) are 100% to blame for any incivility which has happened on-wiki. However I must be careful what I say or Fred, Jim and Dm will be RFArbing me again for even thinking such things. ] 12:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
**You're still responsible for your actions on-wiki. ] ] 12:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::::*Well of course that is true, and entirely why IRCadmins has been such a successful harassing operation, goad and plot against editors in secret, and then ban than when they respond it public. Thank you Mackensen for pointing that out so clearly. ] 12:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::*You're free to allege that; I've seen the evidence and it looks more like a comedy of errors than some deep rooted plot. How do you justify your incivility towards editors who do not use IRC, or who do use IRC but have never been a party towards comedy or malevolence? Feel free to ignore my earlier statements denouncing incivility towards other in IRC. It's also worth mentioning that as an ex-arbitrator I had a hand in drafting Fred's statement and fully endorsed it. There are no free passes here. ] ] 13:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
*Of course it's fair to add more channel ops to combat incivility and personal attacks, but if some of the older channel ops are in fact party to making those attacks, it makes a lot of sense to replace them with friendlier ops. Otherwise, this will just turn into a rehash of "both parties are incivil but we're going to point at one of them and ignore the other's behavior". ] 12:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
**Sorry, but this would seem to be wikidrama for the sake of it. Is there a point to this wikidrama? Is there a point to the admins channel? If something needs sorting out, AN and ANI exist for a reason. If something needs sorting out privately or you want a private opinion, as MONGO pointed out email should be perfectly adequate. If you are worried about privacy, IRC will hardly assuage your worries, as there would seem to be log leaks left, right, and centre. Does and has the admins channel caused harm, problems, and unnecessary wikidrama? That does not seem to be in dispute. The obvious solution is to nuke the admins channel and every other Misplaced Pages IRC channel with the exceptions of #wikipedia and #wikipedia-en, where on occasion I have had some enjoyable conversations that have benefited the encyclopedia. That will certainly put a stop to the wikidrama. ] <sup> ]</sup> 13:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
***Mackensen, some of your arbcom colleagues have had a fee pass for far too long. I concur with Moreschi, any new channel ops will still be under the old disgraceful management? The arbcom's credibility can only be restored if this channel is abolished and its self proclaimed owner de-sysoped for bringing Misplaced Pages into disrepute along with the other admins involved. It must be remembered that leading members of the arbcom have known and approved of this deplorable situation for years. Now it is in the open heads have to roll for Misplaced Pages's reputation to be restored. ] 13:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
****Then by all means bring an arbitration case, or appeal to Jimbo directly. I certainly don't consider myself JamesF's "agent," I can think for myself and act independently, for better or worse. ] ] 14:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:First, Mackensen is arguing pretty vociferously, and he's one of the ops for the channel, so I'm not sure he's uninvolved. There are so many bad arguments being made that it's hard to know where to start.
:#First, is there "cherry picking logs?" What is the difference between "cherry picking logs" and "citing evidence?" Of '''course''' you're going to "cherry pick" because you're going to cite the dang evidence. The :15 when no one is there is not going to be cited. Sheesh. That's a Karl Rove like argument. The point is that the abuse is taking place by the same few people, who are chanops, on several occasions and ''arguably'' regularly. The evidence is clear enough for "several occasions," and "regularly" is what's in dispute.
:#That it's the same few people no one seems inclined to discuss. That these people ''are not administrators'' is similarly not being argued. As far as "giving up" status and having it stripped goes, an ArbCom decision said that Kelly Martin "left under a cloud." It ''demoted'' Tony Sidaway. Both are at en.admins.irc, and Greg Maxwell is simply not an administrator at en.wikipedia. He's a meta administrator, but I'm not aware of his being an admin at en.wikipedia at any point. However, people who give up their status ''give up their status,'' and being at that cursed channel is part of the status. If it's not, then why not open the channel to people who ''one day will be'' administrators along with people who once upon a time were administrators? I'm not being vindictive, here: it's simply built into the very definition of the thing. The arguments for its creation were that administrators needed to speak of sensitive materials. Well, why? So they could act. These people who are not administrators can't act. This isn't me being petty: I never supported segregating the beautiful people from the hoi poloi, but it's what the channel was supposed to do.
:#Go where the people are is, in fact, the critical feature. Admins are all over the regular wikipedia irc channel. Go there, because there are enough people there to turn the conversation away from abuse. In fact, the admins.irc channel is nasty precisely because it's ''not'' where The People are, but where only a small group is from time to time. The more populated the channel, the less commonly it goes into abuse. Every log I have seen of abuse has been when there are few people there, mostly like-minded about the central issue that admins are superior to users, that "clueful" people run things. They are philosophically inclined to believe it their right and responsibility to do what's "right" without policy.
:Finally, the people are the problem, but the medium gives them their freedom to abuse. It's like LSD: the sane people will have a slight entertainment, while the mentally unstable will make a very bad trip. ] 13:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:::I'm aware of one active non-admin wikipedian who requested "admission" to the channel and was last I heard roundly ignored. If that makes ay sense, it's a bit late and too hot for thinking. - <font color="black">]</font> 13:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::::Start an on-wiki procedure to appoint channel operators, so that we don't have clique accusations later. Remove all the non-admins from the channel. Seems like the best solution. &mdash; ] 13:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::First, Geogre, if you'd read the discussion you'd note that I'm a newly-appointed chanop, which makes me part of the solution, not part of the problem (note: this presupposes that the arbcom is sane). I don't appreciate the comparison to Karl Rove and wonder whether it was necessary. I mean, you score some points but it hardly helps matters. I say "cherry-picking" because there's an indictment on the channel as a whole based on the selected behaviour of individuals. That does not make sense. As you rightly note, certain individuals are the problem. That's cause for individual condemnation, not some broad-based approach. If you're going to indict the "medium," you have to actually ''prove'' that the medium is corrupt; to assert it is simply not enough. ] ] 14:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:I'm sorry you don't appreciate the comparison to Rove, but it's a ''Rove argument.'' It's exactly the kind of rhetorical flourish he's famous for. When evidence is presented of abuse, he says, "They cherry picked it." Well, how much would it take? The reason this is an issue, to answer the question the people who haven't followed all of this keep asking, is that ''on-wiki actions'' have been orchestrated on the "invisible" and unaccountable medium of that IRC channel. Each one of these actions has been quickly, if not instantly, reversed, but they just keep coming. Yes, the people are this problem, but there remains no rationale for the channel that shows any advantage to Misplaced Pages. What ''purpose'' does it have? What purpose does it actually ''serve'' that is not better served by media already in place that are already regulated, like AN/I? I asked that question a month ago and, unless I'm really biased, didn't get an answer that stood up. If, therefore, we have people who have to be "worked with" to get permission to change that channel and if these very people are demonstrably problematic, then what the heck are we doing? This is especially the case if they violate the very elitism the channel was set up to create.
:I've tried to be helpful, to offer positive solutions, as well as to condemn what exists now. My essay was an honest effort at working out the inherent strengths and weaknesses. Although some of my points are getting repeated, the hatred and scorn poured out on me by the problem users will prevent their ever admitting that there is a problem.
:Finally, I remind you of what we're talking about here. The subtext is not "play nice." That's lily livered. The subtext is "don't team up to beat on people in a private clubhouse." It's ''far'' more pointed than someone like me being obnoxious to Kelly. It's about blocking. It's about harassing. It's about pretending to be powerful. It's about encouraging new administrators to run roughshod over the project because they are important people. It's about ''learning to show some respect'' for the people who make Misplaced Pages, as those people are not the chanops who spend their lives on IRC. ] 00:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Geogre: Greg Maxwell is an admin on Commons. We need ''as many'' Commons admins in #admins as we can get. Yes, technically, English Misplaced Pages and Wikimedia Commons are separate projects; in practice, they have a lot of related issues, and we frequently need actions taken on Commons (such as nuking shock images being used for vandalism). --] 14:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

===break 2===

Some insight into the reasoning:
*the AC has no jurisdiction over #wikipedia-en-admins. Really, it doesn't.
*The channel was originally set up as a hotline for admin help being requested, particularly by Jimbo or Danny, and it's damn useful for that.
*It's not just for admins, it's for "trusted Wikipedians" of all sorts. There's Alphax on there as a Commons admin, Greg as a developer, etc. (That someone here may feel they have conclusive proof that a given chanop is a minion of Satan out to destroy Wikimedia is irrelevant to this - it's not yours to decide. I don't care. Really.) *and Greg is on as a Commons admin too, of course.
*It's also a good place for admins to sanity-check their personal decisions (or find another admin to deal or not with a matter they feel would be a conflict of interest to deal with or whatever). I'd like it if all new admins were invited onto it and someone should write up some suitable how-to process page.
*Many of the IRC logs received from the AC have clearly been edited and even when not don't include a metric shitload of off-channel communication that serves as context.
*There are admins already avoiding the channel because the cries of the torch and pitchfork toting mob above are making them afraid of what people would do with an out-of-context quote. So the AC going over the last six months of logs sent in from viewers looking for people to bring the vengeance of the Lord down upon really just is not likely to happen.

So the course of action chosen is to try to improve the tone of the place by leading from the front, hence the current /topic: speak like the person you're discussing is reading. And my frequent strong suggestions to behave better. YOU'RE ADMINS, DAMMIT, YOU WERE CHOSEN FOR YOUR GOOD JUDGEMENT. Mostly the channel shows that, by the way. Anyone characterising it as a festering snakepit that must be abolished is IMO smoking crack and I really can't take them seriously.

Note: I am an ex-arb and still on the AC list to <s>kibitz</s> advise. I have level 40 on #wikipedia-en-admins because Jdforrester landed it on me. I'm in there a bit lately, when I'm home and my laptop is on and I remember.

Any questions that show evidence of a shred of good judgement? - ] 13:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

:Quote: "It's also a good place for admins to sanity-check their personal decisions (or find another admin to deal or not with a matter they feel would be a conflict of interest to deal with." Is there a reason why AN, ANI or even email cannot be used for this? Why the insistence on spurious - spurious, because this is clearly not happening - privacy that is only ever going to feed accusations of a cabal? Given that this channel seems to be causing far more wikidrama than it's worth, is there really a compelling argument as to why this should be kept? ] <sup> ]</sup> 14:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

::Because sometimes one wants a quick answer, because sometimes one is dead wrong and when ten people say HELL NO one gets awareness of it, because in many cases it creates ''less'' drama than ANI. Though I prefer ANI ''as well''. Saying "we decided it on IRC" on admin matters is not a good way to do things, way definitely. Your point is a really important one and one to keep in mind: transparency has to be consciously worked for - ] 14:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

::And I want the channel kept because it's damn useful for what it's damn useful for, and abolishing it would lose that without, my psychic powers predict, diminishing the dramatists' valiant and assiduous defense of the wiki or whatever they're doing one iota - ] 14:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

:::I would like to know is ] making the above comments with the sanction and public approval of the arbcom, or are they just using him as a barometer of our opinions. No, I'm afraid a comment alone from Fred will not suffice, something a little more concrete from the arbcom is required. 14:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC){{subst:unisgned|Giano II}}

::::I'm not speaking for the AC (I'm not on the AC, as noted), I'm speaking for me, though the matter is in a lot of discussion at present and I've asked the AC to stop by and clarify if any of them feel I've misrepresented things - ] 14:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

:::::Can you explain your role in regard to the arbcom mailing list? ] 14:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

::::::I did, above: "I am an ex-arb and still on the AC list to <s>kibitz</s> advise." Ex-arbitrators stay on the AC list as they choose - ] 14:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

:Well, it's really very simple. It is said there are too much nasty remarks on the channel, and that the solution is to make more people channel ops. That makes sense. Then someone points out that the nasty remarks are in part made by the older channel ops. No solution for that has been proposed, but the obvious answer seems to be to de-op those. Note that I have never used the channel, nor do I believe it should be nuked. It's appears simply to be a case of two parties being incivil, and only one party being examined for that. ] 14:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

::If it was that simple it would have been resolved centuries ago, ergo it's not that simple. If someone wants someone removed from being a chanop on #wikipedia-en-admins they get to convince Jdforrester, because I'm certainly not going to, I can tell you now ... - ] 14:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

:::It is not just incivility, it is bullying and harassment and attempting to "get rid" of editors. This been condoned by the arbcom, by their assenting silence, - the only solution is to abolish the channel, then no-one has to worry about tackling Jim Forrester (I'm not frightened of him anyway) ] 14:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

::::I suggest it is unlikely you're going to get the lynching you're after. I also suggest you're barely on Jdforrester's radar - ] 14:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::Oh I think you'l find our Jim knows exactly who I am - and I think you know that too! ] 14:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

::::::Yes, you're the one I blocked for egregious personal attacks that no other editor making would be tolerated. If you read what I wrote, by the way, you'll note the AC does not have the power to abolish the channel. I don't know if you've ever heard of "diplomacy" or "assuming good faith", but you could give them a go and see if they give you more results you want rather than less - ] 14:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

::And the solution is not just to make more people ops, it's to ask people to be nice and use their admin-given judgement more. These are smart people, and if they have bursts of stupid then the first thing is to try really hard to stop those. This is the diplomatic solution and lacks the emotionally-satisfying and crowd pleasing character of a really good 'Bungee Saddam' Christmas special, but I submit is more likely to make things actually better - ] 14:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:::The fact that you are so disgusting as to mention "Saddaam" in this context is indicative of the behaviour and level of rubishing anyone who opposes that channel receives. I have been on the receiving end of long enough to know every nasty little trick used. You are going to have to find new depths to sink to now. ] 14:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

:Any other questions? - ]5 14:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

::Well, you've already implied that I'm among those who in your opinions "are smoking crack" and can't be taken seriously, so I suppose it would do me little good to ask a question, O your excellency. &mdash;] (]) 15:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

:::I was speaking as someone who's actually on the damn thing and knows precisely what the usual content is, against those who characterise it in a manner bearing no resemblance to what I see. Of course, it may just be that my crack supplier is much better - ] 15:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

::I have a question - who is it that leaks all those logs to Wikitruth? ]<i>::</i><small>]</small> 15:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

:::Dunno, but the best course of action I can think of is to treat it as a working-channel-with-chat like a sensible admin - ] 15:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:::Hrrmm &mdash; if we knew, we'd definitely have done something about it already ... ] 15:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
*So to sum up,
*#People should not be nasty on the channel,
*#If you see someone nasty, you can ask a channel op to kick that person, but he is not obliged to comply,
*#If you see an op being nasty, you can ask Jdforrester to deop that person, but he is not obliged to comply,
*#The arbcom can request that certain people be opped, deopped, kicked or unkicked from the channel, but the channel ops are not obliged to comply,
*#Being nasty on the channel can be taken into account in arbitration cases, and
*#The cabal puppy eating contest is next wendesday.
*That broadly correct? ] 15:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

::Any chanop is no more obliged to take an admin action than any particular en: admin is obliged to take an admin action, i.e. not at all. People should not be nasty on the channel because it's bad for what is after all supposed to be a working-space-with-chat rather than a cesspit being a working-space-with-chat rather than a cesspit; and I think I'm asking nothing unreasonable by asking admins to act with GOOD ADMIN JUDGEMENT AAARGH. You can indeed and James is actually pretty approachable (if busy) and not insane and stuff. Not only does the AC have no jurisdiction over the channel, the Wikimedia Foundation specificially disclaims jurisdiction over the #wikipedia-xxx channels for reasons of possible legal liability, so bitching about it here does nothing and annoys the pig. Being nasty anywhere that affects the wiki can be taken into account by the AC. The puppy eating contest is Thursday. And NO CANNIBALISM - ] 15:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::*K, fair enough. ] 15:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

===break 2.5===

A somewhat more-to-the-point explanation, perhaps: the operative issue here is David's first point. The ArbCom ''does not have any power over the IRC channels''. We cannot shut them down; we cannot replace the ops; we cannot, as a group, force ''anything'' to happen on IRC (except insofar as some members of the Committee happen to be ops on some channels). The ArbCom simply lacks that ability, and no amount of indignation—justified or otherwise—is going to magically grant it to us.

(As for anyone wondering why there's no desysoppings, etc.: well, the ArbCom has decreed, in the past, that off-Misplaced Pages matters were not its concern. This is likely not to be the case in the future—hence Fred's note—but it would be quite crass of us to extend this retroactively to past events. Hindsight is 20/20, of course.)

(And, on a further note, for anyone wondering: no, the ArbCom does not have Secret All-Seeing IRC Logs(tm).) ] 15:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

:Further on this note: the AC has no power, but currently James, Mackensen and myself (arb and two ex-arbs) - not James very much in practice, he has plenty of other stuff he does - are working to make the place sweeter and happier for all concerned. i.e., we'd like it not to suck kthx and consider such important for the wiki - ] 15:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::You, Mackensen and Forrester - who do you immagine has any confidence in you? This is a joke! ] 16:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:::I wasn't aware that my judgment and capacity to serve were in question. I have always served at the pleasure of the community and if my services are no longer deemed necessary I will happily withdraw into private life, as it were. ] ] 16:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::::Now you are aware. But compared to the unremittingly combative David Gerard, there's still hope for you. ] 16:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::Joyous news, I am not a complete failure yet! Prithee, when did thee supplant our Fair God-King? ] ] 17:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::So ... is this IP Giano? Or someone else? --] 17:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::You're definitely failing the community by consistently Cyding with the IRC gang, against all reason. But that is neither news nor new. ] 17:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::Cyde why not ask one of the secret channel to do an ilicit check user - and find out, that does happen there doesn't it? ] 17:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:::Oh I've just seen "Cyding" that really is very funy, I wish I had thought of that ] 17:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:::You should withdraw that, if you had any concept of decency. ] ] 17:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::::What exactly is indecent? I have seen far worse(far far worse) said by your heros on IRC, so is it vecause I'm saying it in public? ] 17:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::You are publicly insinuating that checkusers are breaching the Foundation's privacy policy, and possibly local law, by making unauthorized disclosure of private information. You are publicly accusing someone of an incredibly dishonourable, if not illegal, act. If you can't back it up then you should withdraw it. ] ] 17:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::Who knows what has been buried and concealed concerning that channel - nothing you people get up to there would surprise me. ] 17:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::::I will ask one more time that you retract that statement. I'm quite serious. ] ] 17:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::*Read what I wrote - "that does happen there doesn't it?" why not stop shouting and answer the question ] 17:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::Having to deny such accusations is degrading. ]. It does not. It would be a grave breach of the trust if it did. That you blithely assume so speaks volumes of the utter contempt you have for all concerned here. I wonder why you stay, when you're surrounded by such fools. ] ] 18:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::I stay Mackensen, because in spite of the frequent clumsy and very obvious attempts by your colleagues to get rid of me, I know I am of use to the encyclopedia - a progect to which i am totally committed. You are quite correct on one point though "''Having to deny such accusations is degrading''" - I'd change my friends if I were you. Incidentally, why would saying "No! Check user has never been abused" be "a'' grave breach of the trust''"?. Please Mackensen don't start clever games with me that you cannot finnish, because I see everything through to the end no matter how bitter (for some) that end may be. ] 19:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Without wishing to cast aspersions at any users with checkuser access, it is certainly possible for checkuser privileges to be abused. I understand that there has been at least one complaint regarding checkuser being used outside of policy. Perhaps I have misunderstood what I have read (I can't guarantee that I could find a link if asked) but I understand the relevant person admitted that they undertook the checkuser complained of, "could not remember" why they did it, and that person subsequently lost their checkuser access. As I understand it, there are checkuser logs, but they are only available to other uses with checkuser privileges. -- ] ] 18:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
*If you count banned trolls and sockpuppets we get complaints all the time. Some of these were deemed important enough for investigation, but the checkuser was cleared in each instance. I am not aware of a direct link between any investigation and any loss of privileges. I've seen that story floating around too, but I've never seen it substantiated, and I first saw it months ago. ] ] 18:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

:::Actually, that IP and I are acquainted. It's a webserver in Germany with open ports. I had to deal with a nasty privacy violation coming from it just a few days ago. Could be anybody using it. ] ] 17:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Anon IP troll blocked for 48 hours (not his first offense, either). And Giano, you shouldn't be cyding with trolls. --] 17:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:Nevermind, block duration changed to indefinite as open proxy per Mackensen's findings. --] 17:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::::That's right Cyde, knock em senseless if they say something you don't like. ] 17:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::Indeed, how shocking that Cyde should ]! We can't have that. ] ] 17:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::How unshocking it is that when Cyde breaches the civility and personal attacks policies, Mackensen, David Gerard, and the rest of the IRC gang are nowhere to be found. Looks pretty one-cyded to me. ] 18:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::::Hello open proxy! France, this time. ] ] 18:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::::Hello! It may surprise you, but I admire your work. I just hope you can find it in you to internalize these criticisms without becoming reactively defensive. ] 18:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

===break 3===
"Behavior on the IRC channel may be taken into consideration with respect to arbitration cases if it results in disruption on Misplaced Pages" Fred, does this mean that the door is now open to launch RFA's relating to the orchestrated blocking incidents and use the logs as evidence? --] | ] 14:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Deep breaths everyone. To sum up;
*'''Fred's statement'''
*#ArbCom recognizes that a problem exists and has been discussing ways of dealing with it
*#New channel procedures and operators are being pushed in an effort to increase civility
*#Comments made on IRC may have 'on Wiki' consequences if they cause 'on Wiki' problems
*'''Outstanding concerns'''
*#Channel continues to exist and thereby damages 'faith in Misplaced Pages'
*#No punishments for past abuses - banning from the channel and de-sysoping were suggested
*#Non en-wikipedia admins on the channel
*#Failure to enforce civility on Misplaced Pages itself / double standards
*#Lack of details about new channel operators/procedures that Fred mentioned

Disclaimer: After long avoiding IRC (ick, ptooey!) I requested access to the admin channel when this blew up about two weeks ago, and (after not hearing back) asked again and got access yesterday. This likely makes me either 'an evil insurrectionist mole', 'irredeemably tainted by IRC toxins', or both.

As to my opinions; I'd say that the changes Fred described all sound like good things. On the concerns/complaints: I have no doubts that if the channel were removed another (or several) would be set up - without any sort of civility requirements or access to people who might object to 'cabalism'... the same would be true for removal of the non admins. It has been de facto policy until now that 'what happens in IRC stays in IRC' - retroactively applying IRC bans and Misplaced Pages de-sysopings would thus seem improper to me (not to mention rather vindictive). Incivility on Misplaced Pages itself certainly has been a major factor here, but we have existing procedures for that which ''generally'' work - despite glitches and disputes over application. Finally, I ''would'' like to hear more about who is being asked to help operate the channel and what sort of guidelines / directions for civility are being contemplated.

My impression based on ''one whole day'' would be that the channel was 60% silly, 25% productive admin work, and 15% complaining about things... the last including occasional incivility which I'd consider on par with what is normally seen amongst admins '''on''' Misplaced Pages. One person was called a 'clown', there was a '''joking''' suggestion to ban everyone who supported a particular featured article, an old major dispute was discussed and one of the primary participants complained about, et cetera. Not perfect and surely not the worst which has taken place, but nothing which couldn't be managed. There was markedly less nastiness than ''this'' discussion for instance. --] 15:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
*CBD has the thread here. It's part of the last 15% that we'd generally like to deal with, but sometimes it can't be avoided&ndash;especially when this very topic came up and partisans from both sides were in channel. On the other hand, as you rightly note, nothing was said there that wasn't said here, and it's also my impression that the conversation on IRC was more polite. This may be because on IRC you can be kicked for being a jerk. ] ] 15:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
*Thank you CBD, for actually investigating on your own and not just believing the mindless hype. The way some of the way people on here talk about it, you'd think #admins goes through a dozen kittens a day, and that's just the ones used for ''sacrificial'' purposes (feasts not included). --] 15:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
*So how do you propose we deal with people on Misplaced Pages who are jerks? I'm not thinking of anyone in particular but this place frequently turns downright nasty. ] 15:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
**Well, blocking used to work, but recently this whole place has become downright partisan that the blocks are overturned even when the person really deserves it. As a result, the person feels vindicated, and continues on with the bad behavior. --] 15:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
**Obviously the answer is to delete WP:AN and subpages and salt them. Also, if we make a rule against incivility, that should stop it in its tracks - look how effective ] is - ] 15:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
***Oh yes, we definitely a board where people can come complain to mommy that "that nasty person hit me after I kicked him". ] 16:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
*This always confused me. Misplaced Pages has no jurisdiction over the IRC channels, fine. If they were closed down people would only find other ways to communicate, yes, that's all well and good. But Misplaced Pages currently ''explicitly sanctions'' use of these specific IRC rooms, by pointing people to them on ] and ]. If Misplaced Pages wishes to bear no responsibility for these rooms, and insists that what happens in there does not relate to what happens on Misplaced Pages, then they should not be plugged on-Wiki, right? ]<i>::</i><small>]</small> 15:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Can we tone down the discourse and look at this in cost-benefit terms? Sure the channel has uses, but noncontroversial alternatives seem to exist for all of those uses. Misplaced Pages is almost entirely a volunteer operation. Part of the reason why millions of people have joined up is because it's an open meritocracy. Admin-only IRC introduces a degree of opaqueness. Although the overwhelming majority of that may be responsible dialog, a small number of serious problems can discredit the undertaking. I doubt effective fail-safes can be implemented. If ArbCom doesn't have authority then I'd like to see that formalized by disaffiliating the channel from Misplaced Pages. It's a recipe for trouble to have a secret-but-leaky chat that 1000+ people can visit that lacks firm admission criteria and that putatively has a formal connection to Misplaced Pages outside the reach of ArbCom. I'm an eventualist on this issue, which means I've always suspected the channel will sink under its own weight but maybe the folks who like it can patch the hull. <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']''</sup></font> 15:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::Sadly for you Cyde the logs show it is not "mindless hype" and that is why we are all here. According to you Mackensen above - there is no problem of huge concern? No wonder they chose him to be chan op! It's going to be another "let's wipe it under the carpet and save the arbcom" - He is of course on the arbcom mailing list. I think we are having our intelligence insulted here by Cyde, Mackensen and David Gerard, I expect as we speak they are rounding up further little IRC admins to come here with their 10 pennies worth - it is truly amazing - what are they going to come up with next? Watching these peole on the run is truly wonderous ] 15:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::Thanks for that. Your support is appreciated. ] ] 15:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::Giano, much as I am ''really'' enjoying the humor value in the implication that I am a 'little IRC admin in cahoots with David, Mackensen, and Cyde' (ROTFL)... 'not a battleground' comes to mind. Yup, people have done things they shouldn't have. Welcome to the human condition... you need to get over it. 'An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind', 'forgive and forget', and all that. If everyone insisted that every wrong be punished we'd spend all our time fighti... <looks around> oh wait. You haven't been above reproach either and in expecting such lapses to be forgiven you should also understand the need to do so for others. People agreeing to 'try to do better' is a ''victory'' for everyone... and insisting that 'there will be no peace until vengeance is satisfied' a loss for all. --] 16:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::I in no way support you. You have been a member of that chanel and known full well what has been going on for ages, so suddenly why have you decided to do something about it, you have condoned it for ages with your silence. You just want to save the "club" at all costs, and when this has died down it will be just as it was before. ] 16:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::For all of one day. It's that dangerous, is it? ] ] 17:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

===break 4 - ArbCom mailing list===
It seems to me that the main issue here (other than the incivility that brought the issue into the open, and that official policy seems to be to sweep past indiscretions under the carpet) is that use of IRC is encouraged, as a quick and dirty way for interested parties to discuss issues as they arise, but there is no official relationship between Misplaced Pages and IRC (by design, it would seem, on account of legal concerns). There is no clarity about that the #admin channel for, and who should have access to it. Should it be limited to current admins? Should it be available to ex-admins too, or indeed any editors in good standing? And if it is being used to formulate consensus for taking admin actions on-wiki, shouldn't it be logged and transparent?

Reading ]'s comments above, I have a second concern: he says he is on the ArbCom mailing list, as a former arbitrator. I had forgotten that non-Arbitrators have access to the ArbCom mailing list (I seem to remember ] calling herself an "arbitrator emeritus". And someone is bound to ask for a diff now). Who else, other than the current members of ArbCom, have access to the list (is there a list somewhere?)? Should they? -- ] ] 16:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::I beleive there is over 20 of them, and when somthing interests them they all but in and have a say, which is why they can't reach concensus on this problem at all, they say they can't abolish the channel, but they could easily abolish the admins who use it, and of course the members of their own comittee who like to make such questionable use of it. ] 16:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:::All former ex-arbitrators in good standing are permitted access, as are certain other trusted persons (people with oversight, checkuser). I should think the committee is capable of cleaning its own house. ] ] 16:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::The committee have proven themselves far from capable of cleaning any house let alone their own, in short they appear incompetent. Now, how many are on that list, precise number please? ] 16:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::I'm not a list-admin so I don't have the exact number, but I suspect you can count as well as I can. Take the current committee, add all former members plus Jimbo, throw on a checkuser or two, subtract Kelly Martin since she unsubscribed when she resigned her adminship and other offices, and you have your potential list. ] ] 16:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::No No NO we don't want throw in one or two, we want how many, and perhaps who, then we could amuse ourselves laughing at how many use the "secret channel". Why not ask David Gerard he runs the list doesn't he? He's bound to know. ] 16:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm sure the ArbCom is capable of looking after itself, but then we peons have an legitimate interest in knowing who is copied in on the internal ruminations of what is essentially Misplaced Pages's highest decision making body, and which is privy to the most sensitive information about all sorts of topics.

There is no mention of an ArbCom mailing list at ] or ], or indeed ]. But, given what you say, it seems rather odd that there are more people on the list who are not members of ArbCom than those there are (12 current members listed at ], compared to 21 former members on the same page - less one - plus more from ] and "one or two" from ]). Given the overlap between the various categories, presumably the list at ] is quite close? -- ] ] 16:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::I think the names of those participating in the arbcom mailing list and the arbcom IRC channel should be public. Most input is useful. Although occasionally former arbitrators can weigh in with old issues I would rather not revisit. ] 18:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

: The committee's internal mailing list is private, as is the committee's IRC channel. Subscriber lists for neither are published. ] Co., ] 18:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::But why can't we just know who the recipients are? Surely that can be transparent - I know who the director of ] is so I'm sure the members of the ARBCOM mailing list can demonstrate similar openeness to the wiki community. --] | ] 18:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

::Oh, I was not aware that there was an ArbCom IRC channel too. Something else that is not mentioned on any of the ArbCom pages. Anyway, I'm not sure why the names on the participants need to be kept "secret". For example, ] mention a similiary-sensitive closed list, .

::Fine, the contents of the ArbCom list e-mails are private, and I am not asking to be able to read them or for them to be logged publicly (although it may be interesting to look back on them in 30 or 60 or 100 years) but ] (who, I understand, participates on the list as a former arbitrator) has essentially told us the answer anyway: "All former ex-arbitrators in good standing are permitted access, as are certain other trusted persons (people with oversight, checkuser)." plus the current members of ArbCom, of course. So why not have a public list of people who are on the mailing list? -- ] ] 18:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:::I'm sure they have very good reasons ALoan, why the names of those who govern us are on a peice of paper known only to he who guards the list, and incidentally decides not only what is allowed to be on it, but even more crucially WHEN! These things are not to be discussed openly, but I do happen to know "he who guards the list" did a check-user on me very recently, while performing himself yet another wrong and again reverted block of me. Obviously he felt I was a serious risk to the Encyclopedia, on the other hand perhaps he was just curious - who knows! ] 19:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

===break 5===
why are we discussing IRC? IRC is off-wiki. AC has no jurisdiction there, we have no jurisdiction there, case closed. If there are problems, spell out in giant letters somewhere that IRC channels, even if called "wiki" have serve no official function on wikipedia, whatsoever. I've been an admin two years, and I've never been tempted to look into IRC. It's not part of Misplaced Pages, period. The AC must be out of its mind considering accepting evidence from IRC logs. Are they bored? Have they considered the difficulties, such as identity-theft and verifiability? Leave IRC alone, but crack down on anyone that takes IRC-feuds onto Misplaced Pages. ] <small>]</small> 16:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to clarify a few things for the purposes of this discussion:
*There are 272 people with access to the #wikipedia-en-admins channel which constitutes about 25% of all English Misplaced Pages administrators. I'm not aware of any Misplaced Pages administrators asking for access for the very first time and not being given it (however I believe there have been instances where channel occupants have had their access revoked due to abuse).
*These days there are usually between 40 and 50 people in the channel at any one time.
*James Forrester is not the "self proclaimed owner of the channel". He is the IRC Group Contact for the Wikimedia Foundation, and in that WMF-sanctioned role he is the person authorised to deal with Freenode on behalf of the Foundation.
*If Wikimedia/the ArbCom requested (e.g. through James Forrester) that the admins channel be shut down, then there would be absolutely nothing (apart maybe from goodwill on the part of Freenode) to stop people from creating an identical channel and picking up where they left off. The IRC channel is not a service of the Wikimedia Foundation, and as such the Foundation only has peripheral authority through the fact that several of those with high-level access on IRC are also deeply involved in one way or another with the Foundation or Misplaced Pages.
*I think I got given operator access in this channel because I asked for it, to fix some faulty channel mode:s or something like that. From there, I have just done the occasional access-giving to admins new to IRC. Rarely have I had to use my operator access to op myself in order to diffuse a situation. I am more hesitant to kick or ban people from the channel, or remove their access, because they are admins. But I've always been a devotee of civility, as some on the WikiEN-l mailing list might know, and I'm happy to enforce a stricter level of civility in the channel into the future.
*The channel is more useful than some people are giving it credit. At least twice in the last week I have found the channel useful to discuss extremely sensitive matters, which would be entirely inappropriate to discuss in larger, more public channels like #wikipedia.
*I would like to know what this new position of the ArbCom means when it comes to IRC logging. At the moment, public logging of #wikipedia-en-admins is strictly prohibited. How are the ArbCom going to take into account statements made on IRC if such logs which they take into account cannot be posted as part of their decisions?
I hope some of that made sense to someone. - ] 16:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::Re: arbcom... Logging and showing the log publicly isn't allowed, however private logging and mailing the logs to the private arbcom list is acceptable. (eg. many users probably have automatic IRC logging turned on for all channels) --] 16:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:::But they're not exactly good evidence, since they can be so easily redacted. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 17:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::::Let alone altered or falsified outright. On-wiki the diffs do not lie. There is no such guarantee with any logs, especially when logs are furnished by parties with vested interests. The last logs I saw being circulated were three statements by James taken ''entirely'' out of context. If that's all that's being distributed, why in the world would ArbCom get involved and try to mete out punishment when they know so little of the situation? --] 17:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::Because folks who think they've been wronged are threatening to hold their breath until they turn blue because it's unfair to them. ] 17:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::It applies to both sides. Everyone just needs to let it go. However, there's one person in particular who can't seem to do that, and as a result, it just goes on, and on ... ] 17:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::::"Numerous incidents involving gross incivility on the IRC channel have been brought to the Arbitration Committee's attention. We consider such behavior absolutely unacceptable; to ensure that it does not continue" - Cyde are you really suggesting that this is all a terrible fit-up and the ArbCom have been mislead? Hardly credible - I'd like to know why Freenode prevent public logging, perhaps there's some means by which they will make an exception for us - we could then release the logs in something akin to the ] - except 30 days perhaps, this would bring transparency to the channel, but preserve the immediate effectiveness of it for private deliberations. --] | ] 17:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::Much worse things have been said on-wiki than anything the ArbCom has looked at from the #admins channel. ArbCom didn't seriously take any actions against the on-wiki stuff and they aren't seriously taking any actions against the #admins stuff either. This is just an advisement message. And no, the thirty day thing wouldn't work. Some of the stuff dealt with is stuff that needs to stay private over legal lifetimes &mdash; that is, decades. The only possible way for public logging to work would be for someone to go through and redact everything that cannot be said in public. I don't see that as being workable. Alternatively, #admins could be opened up and a new channel for dealing with private issues could be started elsewhere. I don't think that would solve the accusations of cannibalism, however. --] 17:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::Given the leaky nature of the channel I would have thought anything that sensitive should be confined to emails anyway. What other arguments are there against publicising the logs? --] | ] 18:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::::If much worse things have been said on-wiki then where are the law-suits?--] | ] 18:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::::You're conflating two separate and highly different issues. One issue is common incivility against other Wikipedians (which happens on and off wiki). There are no legal ramifications. The other issue is stuff that must be discussed privately to avoid legal complications. This is not ever discovered on-wiki. As for the leaky nature of logs &mdash; yes, that is why, largely, other channels are being used to handle the tricky legal issues. --] 18:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:::I'm afraid this is all getting very nastily near to the truth for Cyde! ] 17:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I would like to clarify that Freenode no longer uses the concept of "group contacts" for channels with no official relationship to the thing being discussed. I don't believe that any change to the logging policy is being proposed at this point. While I could be mistaken (and would welcome a link to the salient Freenode policy if I am) I believe that the logging policy is a tradition carried over from #wikipedia rather than a Freenode matter. I would hope that everyone involved in the channel would adhere to the highest standards of Wikilove. Be excellent to one another and to those not present. If there are any current and ongoing problems with misuse of the channel, I would welcome any logs emailed to me privately. ] Co., ] 18:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:I would hope so too, but this has demonstrably not been the case - so, in your opinion public logging is possible? I'd be a lot happier with a published, unredacted log for everyone to see and comment and be judged by. --] | ] 18:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:: I don't believe that additional logging is warranted unless there is still a problem. I am unconvinced that there is a present or ongoing problem at this point, since the users of the channel largely cleaned up their act in the wake of the recent public criticism of the channel. I repeat my offer to investigate any logs emailed to me privately that show a present and ongoing problem. ] Co., ] 18:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:::That's all well and good, but the point is I'm still in a position where I, and every other non-admin - just has to take your word for it. What I've seen over the past months, leads me to believe that there are personalities at wikipedia, in positions of trust, that abuse that trust. with 1000 admins you'd expect a few rotten apples - but when ArbCOM are implicated - you'd expect resignations really. It seems they are unable to police even themselves, let alone the rest of us - I'd prefer to be in a wikipedia, where behaviour like that isn't condoned by the authorities. --] | ] 18:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:: Step right up to ]; if you ask I'll probably nominate you myself. Got a problem with the process there? So do I; visit ] and make yourself heard to help get it fixed. Want to join the channel but not an admin? Become one of the trusted non-admins in the channel by making your case to any chanop. I'm not convinced that the arbitration committee is implicated in anything other than inaction brought about chiefly by jurisdictional concerns. Until recently we treated IRC as completely outside our jurisdiction. Obviously, this is changing. ] Co., ] 18:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::::ArbCom isn't implicated. There's one person making lunatic claims that are wholly unsupported by any evidence. The channel is being watched by a ''multitude'' of people. --] 18:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::Well you wont mind the logs being made public from now on then. I think I'd like to be one of the ''multitude'' --] | ] 18:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::Sure. Any chance you'll open up your correspondence? I'm certain you've nothing to hide either. How about the other commentators on this thread? Come on, give us your emails. Phone conversations would be good to. Talk to your wife about Misplaced Pages before bed? We'll need that to, thanks! Please transcribe private thoughts on a section of your userpage as you have them as well. This is an open project, after all. Call it ''reducto ad absurdum'' if you must, but where does it end? ] ] 18:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::Even #wikipedia doesn't allow logging. It would hardly make sense to have the private admins channel logged, but not the general users channel. Go try to get logging allowed in #wikipedia first, and then we can talk. --] 18:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::Cyde, you know damn well there's evidence - it's been submitted to the ArbCom - again, do you think it was a fit-up? Your mates got caught conspiring in the most reprehensible way, and the best we can come up with is "people have been quite naughty on both side - please stop. For those of you looking on we're going to keep the doors shut for legal reasons, but just trust us everything is going to be ok from now on." mmmmm -And for that matter - no, I'd have no problem with any of my wikipedia business being made public, in fact, wait a minute - I don't use back channel communications.--] | ] 18:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::And we're just going to have to trust that last assertion? ] ] 18:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::Wow, I think if this damning evidence of conspiracy that you spoke of actually did exist, the ArbCom might take some action. As it is, all they're talking about is minding civility on the channel. Stop repeating this hurtful, false, and unsupported accusation. It's not helping ''anything''. You haven't even seen this so-called "evidence", merely blindly repeating something you've heard from others. It's wrong. Stop repeating it. It's little more than vicious gossipy rumors. --] 18:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::::You should assume good faith until it is proven that doing so is untenable yes. My point is that I can't do that now with certain individuals. I'm not looking for complete transparency (from your comment above Mac) - I see the necessity of private communication - but this channel has been abused, to correct the public perception of it, no amount of assurances are really going to work and the scramble to protect it just adds fuel to the suspicion that there's something wrong with it. Let's make a clean breast of things, lets have some openeness, frankness, honesty and integrity. --] | ] 19:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::::Indeed, no amount of arguing to the contrary will convince people of the innocence of the accused. ] ] 19:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
===break 6===
::::::::"But this channel has been abused" &mdash; Can you please, please, offer up some evidence to support this assertion? And especially the assertion of, "Your mates got caught conspiring in the most reprehensible way." These are very bold statements, but they also happen to be unsupported. It's not a good idea to make damaging and controversial assertions without evidence. Until you have more to go on than "But someone else said it", please desist. --] 19:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::Cyde, I'm not here to trade insults or argue semantics with you. I ''have'' seen the logs and we could argue whether conspiring to remove an editor from wikipedia might be considered grossly uncivil. - The whole problem with substantiated arguments is precisely what I'm arguing - make the logs public, and everyone gets to see the behaviour, remove the rather convenient - "you can't substantiate that accusation" because no-one can publish the log. --] | ] 19:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::Please forward these logs to me then, so that ''I'' might review the evidence (and compare it against my own logs to make sure it is accurate). --] 19:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::Or at least clarify what it is that you're talking about. If these are the logs regarding Giano's block, well yes, I've seen them and I'm dismayed by them, and steps are being taken. This, I believe, has already been discussed. If you have something new, say so. ] Co., ] 19:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::::That's still not very clear. That could be any of a dozen times. ''Which'' block are we talking about? I at least want to go through my logs and see if I can find any of this evidence of a vast conspiracy. --] 19:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::I think the best thing now is for Cyde to become cylent, and allow the arbcom to finish their deliberations. ] 19:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::: And I think the same would apply to you as well. ] 19:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

*Oh, fun. Cyde's back to the "I demand evidence! (If you give it to me, I will block you.)" <sigh> Then we get to "if there were evidence, ArbCom would do something" from one head, while another announces dismissively that ArbCom can't do anything and that no one on the channel has to give a rat's fig what ArbCom says about who is or is not an op there. This kind of spirit of cooperation, this level of self-examination, this desire to make sure only the highest standards of behavior are upheld by administrators is, in fact, what keeps this "drama" ongoing. If the actors would only leave the stage, we might at least get a new play. ] 00:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Whatever, I'm honoring Cowman's closing of this thread (even though it's been overturned by Fred) and I'm refusing to continue with this mudfight. It's as plain as day to me that this isn't going ''anywhere'' productive. --] 01:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

We really could do better than this. Giano (and Geogre too, for that matter) whenever you feel moved to make a personal attack on someone, please consider ''not'' doing so. And if goes without saying that if anybody really is engaged in some kind of conspiracy against Giano, they should also knock if off. While people are engaging in these gross and unacceptable personal attacks they are not helping Misplaced Pages. --] 09:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

::*"''if anybody really is engaged in some kind of conspiracy against Giano''" "if???" You are behind the times Tony! However, you always have been a little out of touch with the mood of things here, anyway having proved my point beyond all reasonable doubt, I have now cancelled all wikipedia donations, and advise others to the same. Donating our time is enough from now onwards, if the money is ro be wasted in this fashion . The whole thing is now ridiculous if you, Cyde, Mackensen and your friends want to inhabit a private world of spite then you may, so long as it is poweless and all opinions which eminate from it are shunned, ignored or laughed off, then what the hell. The place and its occupants are now thoroughly discredited. I don't see there is a lot more to say, and unless I am yet again commented on and attacked, I shallbe saying very little more on the subject. I shall not be funding but ignoring the actions and views of all IRCadmins and their non-nadmin cronies from now on. As far as I'm concerned they are in effect de-sysoped as they have forfeited all respect. I advise all others to do the same, thus leaving wikipedia a better place. ] 10:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

=== Suggestion ===
] is probably a better place for this, although ] would be a better name for it. Can I ask that those involved here mosey over there so that we can try to acutally work out a stable solution? <br/><font color="black">]</font> 01:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

== Harassment from another editor ==

Administrators,
I have a current problem with a wikipedian named John Reaves. We got into a disagreement today over the kidnapping of Shawn Hornbeck then went to my talk page. After discussions and his "warnings", I expressed to him the desire that he does not contact me any more on my page. He continues to come back and respond, after warnings from myself on this matter. He even challenged me to report him. I want nothing to do with this person, and do not have a high regard to him after reading of some of his past encounters with other editors. Please see that this person no longer has any contact with me, as I now consider his behavior as harassment. ] 03:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:I went to this editor's talk page to discuss the incivility and the personal attacks they made on ]. They posted things such as <blockquote>"Seems you think too highly of yourself here. This John Reaves goes around issuing people "warnings" and such, and after looking at his profile, he has no authority to do so. Just a over jealous poster who thinks way too much of himself. I would not place much crediance in what he says."</blockquote> and <blockquote>Well considering I have checked your comments on various articles and you clearly seem to think you are above all else, that is a sign of someone who thinks too highly of themselves.</blockquote>. ] 04:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
It should be noted that after all this has been pointed out to me, I pointedly made it clear to him I wanted no more comments from him, and this person has continued to keep coming. '''THAT''' is why I am here. Where I am wrong, I am wrong, and have not comment further to this person in that regards. I ended it in regards to him, and he decided he could not stop. I ask that he be requested to stop. It is simple as that, which this person can't seem to understand or comprehend. ] 04:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:This user thought they could "end it" by accussing me of stalking. There's no policy that says an editor may not defend his character against slander such as this. You can't "end" something by leaving open-ended personal attacks. ] 04:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I will await an answer from the administrators. Also if this person posts on my talk page again, I will notify the administrators here. ] 04:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

:Doesn't look like ] has Wikistalked or harassed. It would have been better to have used a boilerplate template for the talk page warning because the wording was pretty vague. Better still, a few polite words asking ] to be more civil might have been all that was needed. To Kerusso, any editor can post a warning to another editor's talk page. I consider this a level 1 caution - which is supposed to be a polite tap on the shoulder. Not much to worry about. Have a breather and best wishes to both of you. <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']''</sup></font> 04:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, Durova. ] 04:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:I just realized this is in the wrong place. Should this be moved to ]? ] 04:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::I believe Durova made a decision and ended it, or do you see some need to keep it going even further? Let it drop! ] 05:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:::Um, stop freaking out. I was just asking if it should be moved since you commented in the wrong place. This is for discussing administrative stuff, incidents are supposed to be reported to ]. And no, I see no reason to continue this as I was proved right. ] 05:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::::Technically, yes, this matter should be at ], not here. But since the matter has ended, there is really no point moving it there, and there is no point continuing it there (and here). --<sup>]</sup>''']''' ('']'') 05:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

== system template edit requested ==

I already brought this up without opposition at ]:

<blockquote>New users seem to have the idea that you add pages to categories by editing the category page itself. Could we add something to the boilerplate for editing Category pages, so it tells them not to edit in an article, but to add the category wiki-text to the given article? This would save me and many others a good deal of time in reverting mistaken edits to categories, and would therefore allow us to focus further on articles.</blockquote>

Can an administrator please implement this? Thank you, --] 04:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

:I think that falls into the reign of the devs here. I think BugZilla is the way to get the idea implemented. ] 04:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::But admins can edit such messages according to ]. I've done a search of past BugZilla requests, and ones such as these are often considered too specific to enwiki to be even considered.--] 04:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:You can also try to give the idea at ] or ] to get some feedback from other community members and developers. -- ] 04:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

::If I do bring it up at both pumps and it gets double approval, would you be willing to edit the template? Or are you just sending me there? Thanks, --] 04:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:::Wait, can you point which template? -- ] 04:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::::Well I see it doesn't exist as of yet, but couldn't an admin create it? It would be very much similar to ].--] 05:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::Ah... hmm... well, not sure which template is the one that appears when editing a new category. You should go to proposals asking for that template name and the modifications you want. -- ] 05:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:MediaWiki pages are listed at ]. I don't think there's a separate page for the category edit window, but I'm not the most knowledgeable about such things. ] 08:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::]? -- ] 12:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

==Journalist seeking assistance==
If an administrator could take a look at this ] and assist in answering request from ] (] of ]) it would be appreciated. ] 13:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:I wish more people disclosed their potential conflicts of interest as candidly as Edward Lucas and handled disputes as well. I've left my response. Best wishes, <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']''</sup></font> 14:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::Ditto. ] 01:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

== ] and others ==

*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]

Would anyone object if I went ] and just deleted these as being potentially divisive, in making blocking and deleting seem like a big fun competition, or will I have to take them to TFD?

Not that three are not used at all, with ] using two of the seven (500b and 5000d), and ] and ] using one each (200b and 1000d respectively). If I do have to go via TFD, is there any way to link multiple TFD notices to the one discussion (as with AFDx)? ]<i>::</i><small>]</small> 13:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

::Maybe suggest he moves them to his userspace? ] 13:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:::Well, yes, but I'm suggesting they be got rid of, not shifted to userspace. ]<i>::</i><small>]</small> 14:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::::They serve no useful purpose (and sort of imply that someone's worth as an admin is in how many blocks, etc, they've imposed). I won't deny that I've considered speedying them myself before. -- ] 14:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
*Speedy the unused and {{subst} the used ones. No one will complain, and if they do tell them Aaron "save the userboxes" brenneman suggested it. - <font color="black">]</font> 14:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
*I say delete the lot of them, and make yourself a nice template that says "this admin has deleted at least 7 templates on enwiki", then delete that as well. Repeat as necessary. ] 14:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I killed the '''100b''' one, now we just need a few more other rouge admins to take out the lot. --] 14:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:Someone is deleting them before I've had chance to subst them appropriately.(]) ]<i>::</i><small>]</small> 14:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::Yeah... I thought of that afterwards. Just C&P the text. -- ] 14:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:::All done now. :) ]<i>::</i><small>]</small> 14:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

:::: Not sure how many deletes I have to my name, but I do enjoy the irony of so many templates boasting these statistics now taking their destined course. :) ] 14:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

::::: I am not far off the 5,000, and approaching a thousand blocks. I need to get out more. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 23:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

:::::: I am not far off 50, and approaching twenty blocks. I need to get out less, <grin>. -- ] | ] 00:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

==Conflict of interest==
There are being discussed at ] regarding the extent to which our guideline should reflect ] (example: admin power use) or should be resticted to the recent consolidation of the former vanity guideline and the former paid-editor guideline. ] 16:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

== archive comments ==

Administrator ] gave me a link about archiving comments. I hardly understand anything because I'm from a foreign country and my English is not well. Can you please summarise this link? Please leave a comment on my talk page if you agree. Thanks. ] 16:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:I'll reply on your talk page shortly. ] 18:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

== ] ==

There's a real mess over at that page. It's been the focal point of a hot dispute for long enough that I've considered opening an arbitration request. ] performed some deletions recently that included cited material, which has created confusion. The editors are presumptively respecting it as an office action but wonder why it was done. ] seems to be the most active admin. I looked into things today after I opened an e-mail from one of the disputants that contained a serious allegation and a broken hyperlink, which I've tried to chase down in the page history but haven't verified yet.

I'm not sure what to make of this whole situation. If it weren't for Carolyn's edit I'd contact Jossi and probably start drafting an arbitration request. Comments and suggestions are welcome. <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']''</sup></font> 19:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Whoa whoa whoa, straight to arbitration would be skipping a few steps. Has anyone tried mediation? Or maybe an RFC? --] 19:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:I'd have to look up some old diffs to be certain, but I think I pointed them in that direction two months ago. <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']''</sup></font>
::This mess is about to get huger now... And I am probably the most active admin. ] <sup>]</sup> 21:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:::And I'm not certain I have a good solution. That's why I'd like to discuss it here. Any ideas? <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']''</sup></font> 21:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::::Actually I think ] is doing an excellent job as a stabilizing factor, and essentially a mediator, and that over time that should calm things down. However, it is possible, as you suggest, some more immediate remedy be preformed. ] <sup>]</sup> 21:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::That's not the impression I got when an editor petitioned me by e-mail. I'm on thin ice here because I was asked to treat it as confidential, yet I'd really like to see the page get some fresh eyes and additional feedback. <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']''</sup></font> 21:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::The problem is not so much content disagreements at the moment (I've found the long-time editors on this page intelligent and very willing to compromise), but the actions of a notorious banned user. I'm not going to speculate anymore on the alleged actions of this user (at least until the Wikimedia people clear some things up), but all the bizarre details are at the article's talk page. In fact, I doubt there is anything more any of us can do until Danny et al respond. - ] 21:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::::Would it help if I did an investigation the way I did with ]/]? Some old fashioned gumshoe work proved that Booyaka was a sockpuppet of a banned account that had been dormant for too long to get a checkuser. I'm sure you've got other irons in the fire. Yet I'm here if you need me. I've already been on this case for part of the history and I think I know who you're talking about. <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']''</sup></font> 22:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

:::::::::I'd welcome your input Durova. Jossi was doing a GREAT job mediating until a notorious sockpuppeteer (now banned) started creating numerous sock puppet accounts to sway consensus and 'vote'. Although this user is banned, he is still affecting the article, and I believe he even might have contacted the foundation impersonating someone else and asking a Wiki employee to edit the article. Most unseemly. - ] 22:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

::::::::::That's a very serious accusation. Level it with caution. <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']''</sup></font> 23:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

::::::::::::You're familiar with what's being discussed? The banned user's claims were proven to be completely false - ] 00:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::::::I'm familiar with them, but they're pretty tough to encapsulate in a short request here. Please accept my apologies if I oversimplified. Bear in mind that, although your accusation may be meritorious, frivolous charges of that sort far outnumber real ones. The safe course is to be slow about making such a charge unless you're absolutely certain and ready to back it up with page diffs that connect all the dots. <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']''</sup></font> 00:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::Good advice. Once I confirmed that the user's claims regarding authorship were bogus, I did speculate as to how it happened that a foundation employee ended up editing the article. Better to wait. - ] 01:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
"Presumptively respecting" something as an office action is insanity. If something is a] it needs to be clearly and explicitly stated as such. Have we learned ''nothing'' from the past stupidity (including dead-minning) with respect to this? There are "vanilla" edits as well from this account, like where she's listed herself . Her removal of the section with citations should be treated just as any other user's would be. <br/> <font color="black">]</font> 23:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

:It is , in which she says she ''works at'' the office that causes some speculation. Also, she actually removed herself from the employee list in the edit above??? ] <sup>]</sup> 23:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::You're correct of course. Not that it matters, I simply meant it as an example of a "normal" edit, I could have used another example. I do note that the for clarification has gone unanswered. We cannot and must not be put in the position where we are afraid to make straight-forward edits based upon random speculations. I am going to examine the removed section as I would if under normal circumstances, and if I'm satisfied by the reference I'm going to uncomment on it. - <font color="black">]</font> 23:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::* I've uncommented out the section, re-written it since it was copyvio in the form of a long quote easily summarised,added details to the bare html reference, and noted on the talk page that I've done so. I stress this here again: Verification is not negotiable. In teh absence of ''either'' a real source saying Walker didn't write the piece ''or'' some real indication that this was "official" then the citation must stand. It is worth noting that the Walker part of the article is only very small, and the came citation could easily be used without mentioning the guy. - <font color="black">]</font> 00:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

One of the reasons I posted here is because of the confusion about whether something was or was not an office action posted by a Foundation employee in the normal course of work, or a hoax, or something else. It deleted referenced material on a page with a longstanding edit war without explanation, which is definitely something I'd like to see the longstanding sysops comment on. <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']''</sup></font> 00:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

== ] ==

Some events from the past couple of weeks inspired me to create a new category and populate it with myself. Join me if you think this is cool. If you consider it a horrible idea then tell me why: my flameproof suit just returned from the dry cleaners. Cheers, <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']''</sup></font> 21:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:Responded on the category talk page. ] 21:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

== Something new to watch for? ==

Can someone identify or explain what was? Spam? Vandalism? Something really nasty? Or a mistake--<s>note that the previous edit by the same IP was a good edit</s>--no it wasn't; I misread it as the other way around somehow. Perhaps this was just simple vandalism, then, in which case, I'm sorry for taking your time. ] 23:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:Looks like just a new user playing around, light vandalism/spam. -]<sup>]|]</sup> 00:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

::(edit conflict) It seems to be the latest fashion in vandalism. I saw one like this the other day. Not quite sure how it's done though. ] 00:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

:::The part that messes up the page display is the unclosed <code>&lt;div style="position:absolute;left:15px;top:110px;width:100px;height:31px;"&gt;</code> near the end of the added content. Most of the rest is simply dumped on the page verbatim. (BTW, I added diffonly=1 to the diff link above — doing that is probably a good idea when posting diffs to something that messes up the page.) —] <small>(])</small> 04:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

==Piotr Blass==

I feel that my page Piotr Blass is being vandalizes and targeted for deletion
Please look into this.
Thanks
Dr Piotr Blass
www.pblass.com <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 02:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->
:No problem here: it's being discussed at ]. If the article is worth a keep, it will be kept. If not, then deleted. -]<sup>]|]</sup> 02:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
::I apologize, again, Dr. Blass, but his article, always an autobiography, has been deleted many times, and was recently allowed to be undeleted because it's {{tl|deletedpage}} status was removed.—] (]) 03:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
::—] (]) 03:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
:::As a question, isn't ] (as was done for ]) intended for people who wish to go away? It seems he doesn't want to leave, he just wanted to remove the first round of embarassment. ] 03:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
::::No, the result was delete before it was courtesy blanked. Check the log history (not providing a link, as it defeats the purpose of the courtesy blanking). -]<sup>]|]</sup> 03:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::I understand that. It just seems that for him to request the AFD be blanked, and then recreating the article, is gaming the system. Maybe I was wrong. I viewed courtesy blanking as an extension of right to vanish. ] 03:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::::Ah, thank you. Misunderstood your comments. ]<sup>]|]</sup> 03:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::I have restored the AFD as Dr. Blass has shown no attempts to actually leave. I will contact Jimbo about my actions.—] (]) 03:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::Addtionally, if someone feels that I was out of line, I will not object to its reversion.—] (]) 03:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::::I concur with the opionion that Dr. Blass has been gaming our system. The new article offers little of substance beyond what was deleted before in the prior version and the user appears to be canvassing for support. My comment at the deletion discussion reflects that. <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']''</sup></font> 04:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::::Oh, I forgot {{la|Piotrek Blass}} and {{la|Piotrus Blass}}—] (]) 04:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::''Groan''...salt the earth if possible. <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']''</sup></font> 04:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::It was. Centrx went out deleting {{tl|deletedpage}}s. That's how he remade ]—] (]) 04:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::::At the very least, let's not extend any more courtesies. ] 04:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::::] for a former discussion that I brought up.—] (]) 04:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::::And {{lu|Piotr Blass}}, the original account.—] (]) 04:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I see Dr. Blass's IP address was blocked for a month last year for a threat. He's started four different threads on Jimbo's talk page today. How much do we tolerate before discussing a community siteban? He doesn't raise new points, just repeats himself. <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']''</sup></font> 05:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
:Let's see, sock of banned user, recreation of deleted pages. Why are we even continuing to discuss? ] 05:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
::Have any of his accounts actually been banned? <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']''</sup></font> 05:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
:::My mistake. I thought {{user5|Piotr Blass}} had been. So why's he using the sock {{user5|Pblass2002}}?

Just as recreating a page automatically contests a prod, recreating a page implies waiving your right to a courteousy blank. ] 05:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
:{{lx|1=|2={{ucfirst:Piotr Blass}}|3=Talk|4=talk}} has been speedied and salted. ] 05:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

<devil's advocate> Anything to suggest this the the ''real'' Blass other than his claim to that end, and does it make any differance? Just exploring the possibilities here...<br/><font color="black">]</font> 05:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
:He's invited me to one of his lectures, at some point. Also, it's hard not to tell its him.—] (]) 07:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
::It's inconceivable that anyone other than him could duplicate that level of vanity. Besides, the argumentative writing style is inimitable. ] 07:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

===Ban time?===
Based on Dr. Blass' constant abuse of Misplaced Pages policies, guidelines, and the community, I propose that we '''ban''' him from contributing to Misplaced Pages because he has clearly exhausted our patience. His only contributions to the project are his autobiography, the article on ]s, Jimbo's talk page whenever his article is up for deletion (appealing to a "fellow Floridian"), and the talk pages of those who oppose him, because they are not knowledgeable in the fringe area of mathematics. This would include a ban on {{user|Piotr Blass}}, {{user|Pblass2002}}, and the IP {{IPuser|69.163.189.9}} as well as any others he may use.—] (]) 08:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

== Move gone really bad.. Intel Pentium III & friends.. ==

I tried to switch places on 'Intel Pentium III' and 'Pentium III' however it seems wikipedia engine won't let go of 'Intel Pentium III' redirect page so the move is screwed up.
Could someone please move the Article 'Pentium III tmp' -> 'Intel Pentium III'. And put a link from 'Pentium III' -> 'Intel Pentium III'. Please help with this..!
I feel really bad about this screwup, but the database management software seems to have been caught in a momementum 22. Will not try this again, as it seems the database simple can't handle article switches.
Again.. HELP! ;) <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 06:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->

:Fixed. --<sup>]</sup>''']''' ('']'') 07:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

::Thanks!, btw could you swap 'Pentium Pro' and 'Intel Pentium Pro' ..? ] 07:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

::There was no consensus for this move. It was decided a long time ago that microprocessor articles should not have the manufacturer's name in the title. A while back, some guy decided to move all such articles, and those moves were reverted. This move should '''not''' have been made. ] <sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 07:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

:::Oh crap. So I have to fix it back? --<sup>]</sup>''']''' ('']'') 07:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
::::I guess so. Not your fault, really... ] <sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 07:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::Moved back after a bit of deleting. No big problem. --<sup>]</sup>''']''' ('']'') 07:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

== funnypop12 and Muhammad ==

Well i had just asked to give me sources for "medieval christian veiw of Muhammad". And want answer about those diputed pics of Muhammad. Give it and i'll be satisfied. I have different point of veiw based on reasons. Stop this anti-funnypop things please. Thanks. ] 09:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


For the Arbitration Committee, ]&nbsp;] 23:48, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
::This isn't the place for content disputes. Discuss articles on their talk pages, please. Thanks! ] 09:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
: Discuss this at: '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard|Arbitration motion regarding coordinating arbitrators}}'''<!-- ] (]) 23:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC) --><!--Template:hes-->

Latest revision as of 09:16, 11 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 3 2 5
    TfD 0 0 0 1 1
    MfD 0 0 0 0 0
    FfD 0 0 7 7 14
    RfD 0 0 33 15 48
    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)
    • It does look like a good-faith desire to return and work on Misplaced Pages. And I would just want to add that Misplaced Pages needs such a fruitful article creator. Especially since WP:NSPORT was severely trimmed several years ago, and probably thousands of sportspeople articles have since been deleted.
      Support. (I am not an admin, so I am not sure I can vote. I can see some non-admins voting, but I'm still not sure.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 14:26, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Conditional support unblock (non-admin vote- if I'm not allowed to vote then please just unbold this vote): add editing restriction for them to use WP:AFC for article creation, and this restriction can be reviewed in 6-12 months if their article creation has been good. Their article mass creation required one of the largest cleanup jobs I have seen on here, and we certainly wouldn't want the same mass-created quasi-notable articles created again. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:05, 10 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)
    Yeah, I've always felt 90 days is sufficient for default archival purposes. If no one has contributed to a discussion in three months, it's a dead discussion. — The Hand That Feeds You: 18:41, 10 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)
    Honestly, whether that was a Joe Job or not, your behavior is indistinguishable from trolling & deserves a block. — The Hand That Feeds You: 18:45, 10 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)
    Watch it. — The Hand That Feeds You: 18:50, 10 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)

    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.

    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)
    • Oppose I want to see some real world effort working collaboratively somewhere else on wp, not just a six month gap waiting it, off wikipedia. There is no evidence here that there has been a change. scope_creep 08:26, 11 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.

    Sinai and Palestine campaign semi-protected until the 23rd. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

    Hide this racist edit.

    WP:DENY - The Bushranger One ping only 00:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    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

    Blocked, and WP:AIV is thataway →. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

    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

    Rights...left? - The Bushranger One ping only 00:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

    ftools is back!

    I am proud to announce that I have become the new maintainer of Fastily's ftools, which is live here. And yes, this includes the IP range calculator! JJPMaster (she/they) 23:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

    👍 Like -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    Note: DreamRimmer is now also a maintainer. JJPMaster (she/they) 15:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)


    Block appeal for User:Aman.kumar.goel

    UNBLOCK DENIED AKG has withdrawn the request. In any case, I see too many misgivings even on the "support" side to consider an unblock at this time. asilvering (talk) 02:33, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    I am bringing a somewhat unusual unblock request here for broader community input. Aman.kumar.goel has been blocked for more than a year for sockpuppetry (see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Aman.kumar.goel/Archive). As you can see in the unblock request at User talk:Aman.kumar.goel#Unblock request, they have agreed to a one-account restriction as an unblock condition, and there is no CU-confirmed evidence of recent sockpuppetry. However, Ivanvector, who made that check, is skeptical and has declined to support an unblock. A topic ban from WP:ARBPIA and WP:ARBIPA were floated as additional possible conditions, but no agreement was reached, and Aman.kumar.goel has requested that their unblock request be considered by the wider community. Their statement is as follows:

    I was blocked for sockpuppetry. There was no doubt throughout the discussion over that. I have agreed to a one-account restriction. However, during the unblock request, a topic ban on me was proposed from Israel-Palestine (WP:ARBPIA) and also from Afghanistan, Pakistan and India (WP:ARBIPA). Though no proper evidence was provided to substantiate such proposals.
    While the proposal to topic ban me from WP:ARBPIA does not make any sense because I haven't even edited that area, I would nevertheless reject the proposed topic ban from WP:ARBIPA with explanation because in this area I have been significantly active.
    My edits on WP:ARBIPA were clearly net-positive, and they fixed the long-term problems that were otherwise overlooked for a long time. You can find the deletion of a number of non-notable pro-Hindutva articles, creation of SPIs of future LTAs, and multiple DYKs. That said, the idea to topic ban me achieves nothing good. Black Kite himself said "The edits aren't the issue here, it's socking in the IPA area that is.". However, for the offense of sockpuppetry, I have already agreed to one-account restriction and spent over 1 year blocked.
    Once unblocked, I would like to improve drafts such as Draft:Aeroin Spacetech and Draft:Omspace Rocket and Exploration. Looking forward to positive feedback. Aman Kumar Goel 00:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

    asilvering (talk) 01:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

    • Support as requested. The request is sincere. Having edited a fair amount of articles where I discovered this editor's edits, I found his edits thoroughly productive and that is absolutely uncommon in this area. Nxcrypto Message 01:44, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Aman.kumar.goel's explanation for the relationship with Editorkamran is we knew each other in real life, and we used the same internet and the same system sometime, and also helped each other at times with Misplaced Pages editing, but Ivanvector says the CU data indicates someone who had been carefully using two or probably more accounts for quite some time and going to lengths to obscure the connection, but made a mistake just one time that exposed them. I don't know who's right, but this is a CU block, so if Aman.kumar.goel stands by his answer, I'd be uncomfortable unblocking unless another CU has a different interpretation of what happened. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      @Extraordinary Writ, response from AKG copied over:

      Hope you will check my statement above where I explained, "However, upon reading further following the block, I realised that what I did was a violation of WP:SOCK because the use of both these accounts was prohibited by the policy, especially WP:SHARE and WP:MEAT." That means the CU finding does not really challenge my admission because I don't deny using multiple accounts. The only thing I happened to clarify was that the two accounts belonged to two different persons before they were used by the same person, which is me. That's why, in my unblock request (for WP:AN), I have also cited the edits of Editorkamran account as part of my edits into this area. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 02:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

      voorts (talk/contributions) 02:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      All I know about this case is what I can glean by reading the private case notes, which do indeed support what Ivanvector has said. But given that AKG has admitted (on their talk page) to using the Editorkamran account, that's all kind of moot. I'd still like to hear Ivan's latest opinion on this, and I've also pinged off-wiki another CU who is familiar with this case, but my personal feeling is that we should draw a line in the sand and accept the unblock request with the single account restriction, no ARBPIA/IPA/API/TLA restriction, and an understanding that AKG's account at the bank of AGF is empty. RoySmith (talk) 03:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      Oh, the other thing I wanted to mention is that on unblock requests, we're often left wondering what the user plans to work on if unblocked. In this case, they've specified two extant drafts they want to complete, both of which look like they have the potential to be useful articles. So that's a plus. RoySmith (talk) 03:22, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      Am I the only one to feel that their earlier statements, even if they did mention WP:SHARE would not reasonably be understood to an admission that they did eventually user the Editorkamran account? Especially with all that comment about "we used the same internet and the same system sometime" etc? To my read the earlier statement gives the impression that they each account was only ever used by one person even if they did communicate and coordinate their editing at times. It's only most recently that I feel they've finally made it clear they it wasn't simply a matter of communication and coordination but rather that did use the other account directly. This also leads to the obvious question. How could any editor actually think it's okay for them to use some other editor's account just because it primarily belongs to another editor? Whether you consider it WP:SOCKing or whatever, you should not need any real experience to know it's unacceptable and definitely any editor with AKG's experience should know that. Note that I'm not suggesting that an editor who did what AKG did can never be unblocked, definitely they can be. But IMO there are good reasons to call into question whether the editor is ready for an unblock when they seem to have been so dishonest in their unblock request. In other words, if said something like 'yes I did X, I knew it was wrong and should not have done it, I promise not to do it again' rather than what they actually said, I'd be much more inclined to consider an unblock. Nil Einne (talk) 10:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      For what it's worth: I'm the other CU mentioned by Roy. I had run the initial checks and written some contemporaneous notes. I agree with Ivanvector's assessment at the talk page appeal; there was a concerted, long-term effort to obfuscate the connection between these accounts, which doesn't really fit with the assertion that they only realised they were doing something wrong after the fact. Whether a second individual also had access to either account at times can't really be retroactively assessed with any certainty, but it also seems immaterial to the finding of socking. --Blablubbs (talk) 17:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support with 1 account restriction. A prolific editor with no recurring issues. Understands where he was wrong. Capitals00 (talk) 03:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support: I have edited in South Asian-related topics and have run across some edits made by User:Aman.kumar.goel. Of these, I have seen several constructive edits made by him that have overall improved Misplaced Pages. Additionally, being blocked for one year is enough of a penance, which I'm sure has given him time to reflect. In view of this, I support his request in good faith. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam 03:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support with one account restriction and no topic restriction. We need competent editors working in the India topic area, as long as they follow policies and guidelines. The editor should be aware that Misplaced Pages:One last chance applies here. Cullen328 (talk) 05:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose. I warned AKG in October 2021 for tag-team editing with Srijanx22, after many instances of one showing up to a content dispute the other was in to back them up. AKG didn't understand then what the issue was. He didn't understand it when he was blocked for socking with Editorkamran. He doesn't seem to understand it now. The semantics of sockpuppetry vs. "just" meatpuppetry are uncompelling. We indeed need more competent editors in the India topic area. We are not going to get closer to that by letting in someone who has shown willingness to serially manipulate interactions in that topic area, who managed to evade detection for years, who continued doing so after a first warning, and whose explanation is, apparently, unpersuasive to CUs who have reviewed the evidence. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 06:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      It has been sufficiently confirmed throughout these years that the false allegation of tag teaming was indeed false. Do you see me in any of the events that have been mentioned so far in this unblock request? You don't. It is disappointing to see you bringing up your misleading observation you made when you weren't even an admin. You did not even ping me. Oh, and don't ask me how I got here because I watch this noticeboard and have edited it before.Srijanx22 (talk) 07:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      I'm glad that you heeded my warning and stopped tag-teaming with AKG. AKG, however, continued to manipulate consensus in the topic area, which is what he got indeffed for. I didn't ping you because I'm not making any comment on your fitness as an editor; I just wanted to be clear that that 2021 report was separate from the Editorkamran case. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 08:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      To quote what I had said then, "I am comfortable with ignoring your 'warning' since it lacks policy backing." I said that because no tag teaming on my part ever happened in the first place and the time has proven me correct. I would reiterate that you are supposed to ping the editor whose behavior is being discussed. In this case, you had to. Srijanx22 (talk) 09:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      Actually, the SPI makes it clear that there were multiple examples of you reverting to the same version as AKG in rapid succession, whether you were co-ordinating off-wiki with AKG or not. As well as those, I could add 2020–2021 China–India skirmishes on 1st December 2020 and 21st February 2021 and Violence against Christians in India on 19 April 2020. So please give it a rest with the denials and instead ensure that it doesn't happen in the future if AKG is unblocked. Black Kite (talk) 11:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      That's totally superficial. I have also edited both of these popular articles and so have many others I can count on my fingers. Capitals00 (talk) 16:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      Yes, but that's not the point; have you reverted to a version also reverted to by AKG within < 24h on multiple occasions? I suspect not. Black Kite (talk) 18:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support per NxCrypto and RoySmith. I don't see any issue with unblocking right away. The presence of this editor is a net-benefit for this area. Koshuri Sultan (talk) 07:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Comment If unblocked, I would like to see AKG stay away from arbitration enforcement. There were a number of times - I count at least nine times between 2020 and 2023 - that they opened cases here trying to get editors on the "opposing" side blocked, and I don't think continuing this is a good idea. I also note that they were very active at SPI cases involving other editors in ARBIPA, which is another sign of BATTLEGROUND behaviour. Black Kite (talk) 08:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      That, and the refusal to accept TBANs, gives me bad vibes.
      I also don't think that agreeing to use only one account is much of a concession, that's kind of a given, but I guess it's at least better than not agreeing to it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      Yes, this is also my concern. I would have thought that we would expect an editor banned for socking in a CTOP to at least demonstrate their ability to collaborate well outside that CTOP before being allowed to edit it. I can understand the Support !votes above from other editors who generally edit from the same POV as AKG, but I'm still not thinking this is a brilliant idea. Black Kite (talk) 11:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      What is that "same POV as AKG"? It is certainly not their fault that you are assuming bad faith. Capitals00 (talk) 16:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      I don't need to AGF when the evidence is quite plain, as with the editor I mentioned above where I pointed out their tag-teaming issues. Black Kite (talk) 19:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose. This user edits via proxy with IPBE, and the breadth and depth of the deception shown at that SPI is considerable. Now they're back with a semi-plausible explanation, and I don't buy it. And the one-account restriction is more challenging to police with a proxy/IPBE setup.—S Marshall T/C 09:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • If he has agreed to one account restriction and this socking episode makes him ineligible for any future IPBE right, so what's wrong in allowing him back in since he has already served a year of block? Unless you are suggesting we completely ban those who have engaged in sock puppetry altogether, which is unrealistic. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 11:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • What's wrong in allowing him back is everything Ivanvector says in that SPI. Please read it carefully and then re-read AKG's unblock request with a critical eye.—S Marshall T/C 12:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose. I would support unblocking with an ARBIPA topic ban (which could be appealed later when AKG has proved they can edit well outside that area). But since AKG will not accept that TBAN I can only Oppose at the moment. Black Kite (talk) 11:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support - The request is convincing and to-the-point. Those opposing are seemingly forgetting that it has been more than a year since this editor has been blocked. Azuredivay (talk) 12:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support per above without any topic ban. It is totally unreasonable to seek punishment over the same offense even after WP:SO has been sufficiently met. Lorstaking (talk) 12:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      It is not at all unusual for editors seeking an unblock to be required to accept a topic ban as a precondition to that unblock. Here are two are recent examples from this noticeboard. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      Whilst I don't support the topic ban, it would not be done as punishment, but as a measure reducing the likelihood of further disruption. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      Caeciliusinhorto-public not good to compare community banned editors with this case. Capitals00 (talk) 16:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support per Ivanvector: i.e. dependent on a topic ban from WP:ARBIPA and WP:ARBPIA and a single-account restriction. This will deal with the meat of the issue, while WP:ROPE should take care of the crust. SerialNumber54129 13:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose I find myself agreeing with Black Kite - if they are willing to come back with a topic ban that'd be one thing. Without it I'm concerned we'll just end up back at AN/I, SPI or AE again. Simonm223 (talk) 13:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      I will tentatively change my position to support provided it includes the topic ban. Simonm223 (talk) 18:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose While I appreciate that brevity is required in unblock requests and people have different ways of writing stuff, as I noted above I feel the original unblock request was at a minimum intentionally evasive if not even misleading on whether Aman.kumar.goel had used the Editorkamran account directly. While they've now made it clear that they did so, the fact this only happened after editor questioned their story compared to the CU view makes me question whether it's because they didn't realise they were unclear or instead because they realised their evasiveness wasn't working. If they were evasive in their recent unblock request, this makes it very hard to trust Aman.kumar.goel. Further, even if Akg wasn't being evasive, it's very unclear why an editor with their experience didn't realise what they were doing was wrong until recently. I was originally willing to accept with a topic ban but frankly I'm now not even sure that's enough, but it's moot anyway. If this fails, I'd suggest on their next appeal Aman.kumar.goel ensures what they're telling us is clear from the get go. Nil Einne (talk) 15:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support without topic ban. Sockpuppetry was the sole concern for the indefinite block. There is no evidence of any disruptive edits, as such the idea of topic ban makes zero sense. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 15:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose per Black Kite. Any unblock that doesn't involve a restriction on AKG's original area of disruption will simply allow for further disruption. The Kip 16:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      Not at all. Very recently, several editors editing this subject and socked were unblocked recently without any topic bans, including one more editor who was banned per 3x. Nxcrypto Message 16:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose per Nil Einne. Being "intentionally evasive if not even misleading" during this unblock request and previously makes it very hard for me to trust this user. I'm glad they owned up to their outright sockpuppetry with Editorkamran and had they done so from the beginning of the request, I'd have considered supporting the request, provided they accepted the topic ban(s) suggested (so as to increase the odds of their future success). --Yamla (talk) 16:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose unless an ARBIPA TBAN is applied. AKG's edits have not always been a positive: their approach to contentious matters has often been needlessly aggressive, and they haven't always been able to engage constructively with users and sources they disagree with. In that context sockpuppetry is more than "just" sockpuppetry. Some examples: , , , , , , and (These are discussions, not diffs, but I believe the context is needed to demonstrate the pattern I see). Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      I would tentatively support with the TBAN they have now agreed to. I have no opinion on whether a PIA ban is needed: if they have edited in that area I haven't seen it. I was considering suggesting a ban from bring others to AE/AN/ANI, but perhaps some rope is appropriate there. In any case they should be aware that they are on thin ice. I would also note that under no circumstances should they be given IPBE in the foreseeable future. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC) I'm sorry to vacillate like this, but based on comments by Ivanvector and Girth Summit I simply cannot support (NB: while I am a CU, I am obviously not acting as a CU in this case). Despite our past disagreements I had been willing to give AKG another chance, but that was based on the assumption that they were being fully forthcoming, and based on the comments of CUs familiar with this situation, it doesn't appear that they have come clean. Put me down as a neutral, I suppose, though I remain opposed absent a TBAN. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose: Per Vanamonde, Tamzin, and Black Kite. It's telling that they won't accept a TBAN from my point of view. They were disruptive prior to their block and, as much as I want to assume good faith, I feel strongly that their refusal signals their intent to immediate jump into said area. There's also the concern that they may end up chasing other editors away from the site if they continue their aggressive behaviour and approach, which frankly I expect based on the lengths they went to in the past and the TBAN issue. I think this user was a net negative, chased people away from those areas, and made it more difficult for others to get involved with. Unblocking this user would end up leading to editor time wasted and would be a further net negative. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      Noting that I still oppose the unblock, even though they accepted the condition about a TBAN. I agree with Girth Summit that this seems to just be someone saying whatever they think will convince people to unblock them. I also firmly believe that allowing them back onto the project will be a net negative. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Comment Aman.kumar.goel has requested this comment to be posted here from their talkpage:

    After seeing a number of editors, some of whom I respect, are supporting my unblock but only with a topic ban from WP:ARBIPA, I would like to accept the topic ban from the said area. Ping Yamla, The Kip, Black Kite, Caeciliusinhorto-public, Simonm223 and Vanamonde93. Thanks Aman Kumar Goel 17:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

    - Ratnahastin (talk) 17:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

    Would they also consent to the WP:ARBPIA topic ban? Because my understanding is that the ask was for both. Simonm223 (talk) 17:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    I don't believe the PIA issue is a problem, only the IPA one. Black Kite (talk) 18:57, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose an unblock based on this request. When I'm looking at an unblock request, I try to get a sense of whether someone is actually coming clean and saying 'I did this thing, I recognise that was out of order and I undertake that I won't do it again', or something along those lines. In this case, I don't see that. In their unblock request of 10 December 2024 (just a month ago), AKG seems still to be saying that they were not using multiple accounts - their argument seems to be that they accept there was a violation of WP:MEAT and WP:SHARE, but the two accounts were used by two different people from the same device. They have since swung round to acknowledging that they were in fact using the Editorkamram account, but are saying that they thought that was OK since the account really belonged to somebody else and they only used it from time to time. I'm afraid I simply don't believe that story, and I don't know what to think about their shifting narratives - I get the sense of someone saying whatever they think will convince people to unblock them, changing their story when it becomes apparent that it's not working, and failing to actually come clean about what they did and why they did it. If I don't trust someone in what they are saying in their unblock appeal, I don't trust them to abide by a one-account restriction - so, yeah, I don't think we can accept this request. Do some self-reflection, come back in six months with a frank and believable unblock request. Girth Summit (blether) 18:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support. Seeing that AKG has agreed to the proposed IPA topic ban, the unblocking would be fine now. See no other issues. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 19:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support based on the comments from RoySmith and agree with their point that the AGF tank is gone for A.K.G. Any issues beyond a minor oops with their editing should be an immediate indef. No warnings, no "one last chance". That bridge was crossed, burned, torn down and barriers put up to block it from being rebuilt. Ravensfire (talk) 19:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    I hope A.K.G recognizes that is a last chance for them, and returning quickly to a contentious topic could be challenging for them to stay cool, engage in discussions but not disruption and that there will be enhanced scrutiny on their edits and willingness to take concerns to an admin board. They can't edit as they did before. Ravensfire (talk) 19:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose - I gave my reasons on the talk page; I don't trust this user. Ivanvector (/Edits) 20:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      Also I should point out that I was not involved whatsoever in the checks that led to this block; my comments on the talk page refer to emails I remember reading a year earlier on the private checkuser mailing list, which does not archive. I did check in relation to their unblock request recently and in my opinion that check was inconclusive; I elaborated on their user talk at the time. The result gives me pause because they had been using multiple accounts and evading checkuser for quite a long time before being blocked, while editing in one of our longest-designated contentious topics, one that's known to be very badly impacted by sockpuppetry and state-sanctioned disinformation campaigns. I suggested a topic ban from India-Pakistan for reasons that I think are already obvious from previous comments in this thread, and from Israel-Palestine because of something I thought I read on their talk page about a dispute in that topic, but I can't find that now and so I have to say I was probably out of line to have suggested it. But on the whole, I do not support unblocking, even with the proposed restriction. Ivanvector (/Edits) 20:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Very, very weak support on unblocking here with a one-account and indefinite IPA topic ban restriction. I found my engagement with the editor at their talk page today to be somewhere between obstructionist and disingenuous — and from reading the comments above, others have got similar vibes from different comments earlier in this process regarding the sockpuppetry and willingness to accept a topic ban condition. As Ravensfire notes above, the assume good faith tank is just about empty here — which means any non-trivial lapse or return to suboptimal behaviours is going to end up with a pretty swift reblock. I am very sympathetic to the number of very experienced editors above saying that this editor is a time sink and a net negative, and while I don't necessarily disagree based on what I've seen at their talk page and the evidence presented here, I think it's worth trying here one more time — armed with account and topic ban restrictions, and a pretty clear sentiment from a number of admins commenting (both on the support and oppose sides) that any issues upon resuming editing will be handled swiftly. Daniel (talk) 22:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support, but only with IPA topic ban, 1-account restriction, no VPN use, and no IPBE. That should allow us to be able to detect recidivism and limit potential damage. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose per Black Kite, Tamzin, S Marshall, Girth Summit, and Ivanvector. Andre🚐 23:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose, agreeing with a number of editors above. I don't know if the two drafts, for Indian companies, would fall under WP:ARBIPA. Unfortunately, the editor does not seem trustworthy. Miniapolis 23:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support - At the end of the day, the standard offer has been followed by this user for a long time. Don't see anything wrong with providing one more chance. Dympies (talk) 23:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose per comments of Blablubbs, Tamzin, etc. If they are unblocked, they should be under an India--Pakistan CTOP topic ban. --JBL (talk) 00:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose. The CheckUser evidence of overt sock puppetry (not meat puppetry) is pretty strong, and the repeated denials, which seem to get walked back over time, make this user seem untrustworthy. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:28, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support - Noting the opposes above, AKG has nevertheless agreed with a topic ban inline with many of the opposes. It shows he is willing to minimize any possible concerns and that is a good sign. Shankargb (talk) 00:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose calling socking the sole issue is a red herring when there was disruption in addition, but the socking alone merited the block so they didn't need to be blocked for both. I think accepting the t-ban is more telling us what he thinks we want to hear, vs. awareness of why AKG shouldn't edit there. I do not think an unblock would be productive. Star Mississippi 01:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Import request

    Can you import, List of characters in brawl stars from simple Misplaced Pages. I created the page there. — Cactus🌵 07:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

    I suppose you mean this page, which you didn't create at all though, and which is completely unsuitable for enwiki as it stands, being unsourced and lacking all indication of notability. Fram (talk) 09:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    Well, they did create the page. JJPMaster (she/they) 15:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    Fram, oh, okay — Cactus🌵 09:16, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

    Requesting a range block of 109.172.86.0/24

    Special:Contributions/109.172.86.0/24 this range of IP addresses have solely been used to insert nonsensical characters. Another IP range has already been blocked for the same thing (they edited the same way). jolielover♥talk 10:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

    Looks like it's web hosting or something like that. Sometimes these kinds of services turn out to be proxies for schools or businesses, especially when there's petty disruption coming from them. There's nobody on this IP range at all, though, so it seems safe to hard block. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

    Arbitration motion regarding coordinating arbitrators

    The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

    The Arbitration Committee's procedures are amended by adding the following section:

    Coordinating arbitrators

    The Arbitration Committee shall, from time to time, designate one or more arbitrators to serve as the Committee's coordinating arbitrators.

    Coordinating arbitrators shall be responsible for assisting the Committee in the routine administration and organization of its mailing list and non-public work in a similar manner as the existing arbitration clerks assist in the administration of the Committee's on-wiki work.

    The specific responsibilities of coordinating arbitrators shall include:

    • Acknowledging the receipt of correspondence and assigning tracking identifiers to pending requests and other matters;
    • Tracking the status of pending matters and providing regular updates and reminders on the status of the Committee's off-wiki work to arbitrators;
    • Reminding members of the Committee to vote or otherwise take action in pending matters;
    • Organizing related correspondence into case files; and
    • Performing similar routine administrative and clerical functions.

    A coordinating arbitrator may, but is not required to, state an intention to abstain on some or all matters before the Committee without being listed as an "inactive" arbitrator.

    For the Arbitration Committee, SilverLocust 💬 23:48, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

    Discuss this at: Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motion regarding coordinating arbitrators
    Category: